this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
162 points (99.4% liked)

politics

30941 readers
3263 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
162
Trump’s Contested Order to Restrict Mail-In Voting Could Disenfranchise Millions: Ari Berman (www.democracynow.org)
submitted 1 day ago by savvie@lemmy.zip to c/politics@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the midterm elections less than 10 weeks away, the Supreme Court has lifted a lower court injunction on President Trump’s executive order seeking to limit mail-in voting ahead of the midterms. Trump’s order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create state-by-state lists of eligible voters who are citizens. The U.S. Postal Service would then use the lists provided by states to assess if voters should be allowed to vote by mail. On Monday, justices ruled 6 to 3 that California and 22 other states lacked standing to sue over the issue. The ruling, however, did not address whether Trump had authority to impose the rules.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the majority opinion “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The 6-3 SCOTUS ruling was in a lawsuit that challenged the exec order on its face. That is to say, the lawsuit was asking the federal courts to declare that the EO is illegal and void. The supreme court said just having an EO is too wishy washy to be an actual harm or injury that you can sue for.

But... During the time of this litigation, the post office has finalized the new rules that implement the EO. So now there are rules on the books that actually do things that affect people... Actual harms that can be the basis of a new lawsuit.

And that's exactly what happened. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the rule instead of the EO, and they're going to ask for their TRO and prelim injunction very shortly now.

TLDR: the supreme court is once again finding the lamest and most legalistic reasons to hand this president small "victories" real fast, while they duck and dodge on saying anything about the real issues.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 13 points 1 day ago

And it will suffice.

The whole system is based on rules not being applied in time (for example you can't undemolish a west wing, even if the court rules it was illegal afterwards). They create facts and thats the win they need no matter what some judge says afterwards.

In this case they can mess with the voters and influence the maybe most important election of this century.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

Could? WILL

That's the entire point of it.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So I understand that the Civil War effectively settled the question of whether the states can unilaterally dissolve the Union, but legalistically, but at what point has the federal government constructively dissolved it? The Constitution very explicitly gives the authority over elections to the states and Congress. Now that the other two branches have ignored it, it feels like they've abrogated the whole Constitution, since I believe it's not severable.

(Yes, I'm aware they've done this before, which only makes my question more pertinent. John Roberts has erased any legitimacy the Court once had.)

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

at what point has the federal government constructively dissolved [the Union]?

At the point where the military and cops start obeying the constitution by no longer obeying illegal orders, I guess.

So probably long past the “millions of innocent citizens directly and indirectly murdered by the government" point 😮‍💨

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

That's the joke

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As long as those millions are "the people he needs to be hurting", the conservatives are juuuuuust fine with it.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that's like literally the point. In other news, water wet i guess.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It doesn't even matter if it hurts the people he needs to be hurting or if he ends up hurting his own base, as long as one single person is being hurt who needs to be hurt, it's a win to them. They will get themselves hurt as long as at least one "brown or queer" gets it worse.

[–] blastosist@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

We have been voting by mail for decades in Oregon and it’s convenient and it works but then again I believe in Democracy.

[–] vegafjord@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

disenfranchize comes from "dis" meaning away or discard, "enfranchize" meaning granting status of citizenship, from "en", "franchize" meaning "special rights given by authority", from "franc" meaning free.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=disenfranchise

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

That's the point, the politicians want to pick the voters, not appeal to them

[–] Dionysus@leminal.space 2 points 1 day ago

Trump's Contested Order to Restrict Mail-In Voting Could Disenfranchise Millions

It's a feature not a bug.