Americans need to start building guillotines
this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
298 points (98.4% liked)
politics
23594 readers
2936 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.
The longer it takes to get there, the greater the harm to fix it.
You can't legislate Constitutional overrides. Legislation either conforms to the Constitution, or it is declared invalid and gets sent back to Congress for reworking. It doesn't matter if it passes both Houses and gets signed by the President. If the Judiciary rules that it violates the Constitution, it gets thrown out. That's how this works.
Yeah well the thing is:
If no one enforces the judiciary's edicts, but they all say aye to whatever trump's new decree of the day is then Judicial is just standing there foot in mouth ...
You might think so but there are many recent examples of things playing out counter to a plain reading of law so I'm not quite as confident.
Technically, the consitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn laws, its just a precedent set by Marbury vs Madison, and congress and the president at the time just went along with it. I could totally see the military use this logic and go "Hmm... seems legit" and proceed to ignore court orders.
Someone with standing has to file a case in court, then get a ruling in their favor.
Until then, this would stand.
Makes you think about the headline. "Could disarm US Supreme Court" is at that point hyperbolic and misleading.
It’d be a shame if the Supreme Court found the whole bill unconstitutional cause of this one line and they wasted their one chance to pass a bill.
Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.
There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.
Who would have standing to bring a case?
Every citizen who relies on or expects the supreme court to do their job, because without it, well, no one will ever have standing for anything.
And I imagine they are motivated not do so given it basically shuts down their power.
Nah, it's the perfect position, be able look like you're pushing back while complaining you don't have the power to do it. A certain political party perfected that tactic.