this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
1526 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2490 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you...talking about the proposed term limits? Because that's purely legislative, there's no need to ask permission from the justices.

[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Justices can just rule it unconstitutional.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Could they rule on it without having an overt conflict? Why wouldn't they need to recuse themselves?

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Because they have no rules.

[–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago

Who will force them to recuse themselves? They answer to no one.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

What code of ethics or oversight board demands they recuse themselves?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

It'd have to pass constitutional muster. Usually, it's hard for one branch of government to impose restrictions on another branch of government without a constitutional amendment. It'd end up in front of the Supreme Court to decide if they would accept that restriction or not.

One of the reasons increasing the size of the Supreme Court comes up as a solution is because Congress is explicitly allowed to just do that.