this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
459 points (99.4% liked)

politics

25327 readers
2596 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The California Supreme Court will not prevent Democrats from moving forward Thursday with a plan to redraw congressional districts.

Republicans in the Golden State had asked the state's high court to step in and temporarily block the redistricting efforts, arguing that Democrats — who are racing to put the plan on the ballot later this year — had skirted a rule requiring state lawmakers to wait at least 30 days before passing newly introduced legislation.

But in a ruling late Wednesday, the court declined to act, writing that the Republican state lawmakers who filed the suit had "failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FundMECFS@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Abolish arbitrary districts. Towards Proportional Representation.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago

This is either the beginning or the end of democracy.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 22 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Well, they did it in Texas so now we'll all loose more control with our votes. I know its retaliatory and probably necessary for blue states, but in the long run it will get worse for votes to count. Easy to say and but hard to do, but we need to get rid of land having the power to vote and have the vote of the people count. Rich people own more land anyways and shouldn't have more control.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 6 points 13 hours ago

California knows it's not ideal, which is why it has an expiration date when it would have to be voted in again by the people (unlike in Texas). Have to fight fire with fire or you lose before you even start.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 21 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

I know its retaliatory and probably necessary for blue states, but in the long run it will get worse for votes to count.

You have determined why this is such a big deal that our grandkids or grandroids will look back at this moment as pivotal in American history, and the beginning of the end. It's fucking sad and nobody really gets it.

This is the beginning of a power struggle between states that will eventually, effectively dissolve the union. Democracy on the national stage dies when the states just start inventing their own power structures in order to stay on the stage at all. After a point, federal government in states will become more of a liability than a benefit, particularly for states or coalitions of states who make more money than they receive from the federal government, and they will start making their own decisions how to use their tax money. And we should all have a pretty good idea where it goes from there.

And it's not even the wrong choice either, it HAS to be done, it's just the outcome of what happens when you have a democracy-destroying dictator take over a nation. We didn't think it could happen, and broadly, the country still doesn't think it could happen... even as it's happening.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 145 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The supreme court denied the republican's claim that democrats didn't wait 30 days before passing the legislation.

Democrats used the technique of "editing" an existing bill by replacing all the text. Its not technically new legislation, its an edit, which doesn't require 30 days before passage. Clearly against the spirit but not letter of that rule.

Courts can only rule on things they are asked to rule on. The court declined to stop the bill based on the specific procedural issue in this case. The court did not rule on the merits of the redistricting law itself. There will surely be more judgments in future

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 23 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Clearly against the spirit but not letter of that rule.

MAGAs have been playing this game for a long time. It's about time the Dems demonstrated that it's a two-edged sword that can be welded against them as well.

[–] StocktonCrushed@sh.itjust.works 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Seriously, are we going to take the high road straight to our graves?

No more "When they go low, we go high" bullshit. When they go low, step on their fucking throats and make them regret it.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 13 hours ago

I always say that when they go low, kick them in the teeth, real hard.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 5 points 18 hours ago

They won’t understand the rules that get ignored by them can be ignored by others too. It’s a cult of control freaks.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

Weld that sword into their asshole. I will bring the blowtorch.

I really appreciate commentors like yourself that add value to posts with clarifying details. Thank you!

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

Often called “zombie bills”… Georgia Republicans do it all the time.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Democrats used the technique of “editing” an existing bill by replacing all the text. Its not technically new legislation, its an edit, which doesn’t require 30 days before passage. Clearly against the spirit but not letter of that rule.

The national Congress pulls this trick regularly, also in order to get around rules limiting the speed at which legislation can be introduced. I believe the PPACA was passed out of the body of another bill, after Republicans tried to use calendaring rules to obstruct the legislation, back in 2010. One of the bigger tax bills - either Trump's or Bush's, I can't recall - was passed in a similar manner.

Maybe we'll see a federal court block this on a technicality, but if they do it would be a huge shift in how legislation is moved in the face of minority obstruction.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The federal legislature is one of the worst. They do a ton of awful shenanigans. I would support a constitutional amendment to ban all of those practices.

Bills can have only one subject. The subject needs to be the title. The title cannot be changed.

Those three rules block at least 90% of federal legislative nonsense.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Bills can have only one subject. The subject needs to be the title. The title cannot be changed.

And perhaps the title should be what the bill actually is

For example something like "Freedom for American Internet Choice"

Which likely removes regulation or restriction on a company being a monopoly because the "Freedom" is who can bribe the most and lobby against possible commercial or municipal competition.

There's plenty of bills like that where the title is incredibly misleading, on purpose, to get people who don't care to do any research to wonder "why would anybody be against freedom?"

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago

Yes, that is what that line means. Washington has very similar language in their constitution and it blocks a lot of shenanigans.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 17 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

We are headed for another civil war.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 hours ago

LONG LIVE WESTERN FORCES

[–] Azal@pawb.social 7 points 13 hours ago

I've been calling Trump's administration the Confederate victory 160 years later. They played the long game and people got cozy with the racists around.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

It will take a lot longer than our generation.

This will indeed result in the dissolution of the United States, but before it becomes armed conflict, a lot of things have to happen.

Once every state has "restructured" their representational maps to whatever the fuck they want and it becomes an ongoing stalemate, eventually many states or coalitions of states who bring in more money than they receive from the federal government are going to start withholding their tax money and making their own decisions how to spend their funding. This will start slow so it doesn't immediately get squashed by the army or national guard, it will be a bill here or there, some will get stopped by courts, some won't.

Eventually, enough of a region's money will stay within-region that the whole idea of belonging to a union will seem arbitrary and pointless. People will still elect clowns to speak and vote on bills and such, but it will slowly become both more performative and more contentious.

When the country starts to resemble power-blocs with bold lines between alliances of states representing different ideals or values, that's when a soft form of segregation begins. The Southern Alliance will have beef with the Cascadian Union, the Northern Heartland will have corn disputes with the nation-state of Neo York. The Eastern Pedophile Coalition will get in fights with the small province of RaytheonDisneyTimeWarnerJohnsonAndJohnson, and as these tensions heat up over years, it will become cultural divides, languages will start to drift, accents will become stronger.

Once we have the clear dividing lines between groups of people, THAT is when all-out war is far more likely than ever. It may take a long time to come to that, but there may also be a lot of "spats" leading up to it. For the immediate future it's more likely to be civil unrest, riots, national guard crackdowns and protests and counter protests until the violence just starts to feel normal.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Remember the billionaires are trying to speed run this so they can buy people.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

They're also trying to speedrun so they get their own nation borders and laws that allow them to do literally whatever they want so they can really get that line to go up. They will not be happy until they become Dutch East India 2.0 with free reign to launch dropships full of murder drones on any resource they want.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

What's better, civil war or Fourth Reich?

load more comments
view more: next ›