this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
120 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25495 readers
2266 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
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

"We don't just charge people criminally and then say, 'Oops, my bad,'" he said. "I'm at a loss how the U.S. Attorney's Office thought this was an appropriate charge in any court, let alone the federal court."

But Pirro pushed back against Faruqui's comments.

"This judge has a long history of bending over backwards to release dangerous felons in possession of firearms and on frequent occasions he has downplayed the seriousness of felons who possess illegal firearms and the danger they pose to our community," Pirro said in a statement to NPR. "The comments he made today are no different than those he makes in other cases involving dangerous criminals."

Pirro should be disbarred for these statements. They have no attachment to the meaning of justice as the constitution presents it.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 week ago

The President has usurped the Constitution with SCOTUS approval.

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Yes, piss off judges. That's a winning strategy.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Their hubris seems to be expanding even faster than their power. Saving grace for us, maybe.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 9 points 1 week ago

They started firing lawyers who wouldn't endlessly lie to the judge. Then the other lawyers who want a career that will last longer than the Cheeto man's body quit en masse

So by the power of natural selection, they are now understaffed, with only lawyers who are bad at their job and willing to piss off judges

We're going to see a lot more of this...

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

It won trump the election apparently. This is a stupid world.

[–] memfree@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Dismissed because they had no business searching him in the first place, but he remains in custody for violating terms of his previous release.

A federal judge dismissed a weapons case against a man held in the D.C. jail for a week — concluding he was subject to an unlawful search.

The judge said Torez Riley appeared to have been singled out because he is a Black man who carried a backpack that looked heavy. Law enforcement officers said in court papers they found two weapons in Riley's crossbody bag — after he had previously been convicted on a weapons charge.