this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
96 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2906 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
 

Summary

Donald Trump’s plan to use recess appointments for key roles could spark a Supreme Court challenge, as Senate Republicans may resist confirming controversial nominees.

Recess appointments, which bypass Senate approval, were restricted in a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, but Trump might test limits by forcing a Senate recess using a rarely invoked constitutional provision.

The conservative-majority Supreme Court could revisit its stance, though precedent favors limiting such appointments.

Legal challenges could delay any impact, as standing requires an affected party to sue, potentially prolonging disputes for years.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Does anyone actually see much opposition to trump’s will from the spineless republicans? They fell in line completely. The outliers are insignificant. The party will fall in line with whatever that orange asshole wants.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I expect very mild resistance from Congress and SCOTUS. While all of them do have their lips glued to Trumps ass a spineless weasel is always a spineless weasel, if they thought distancing themselves from Trump was the most advantageous move they'd do it. They'll want to build in a tiny bit of plausibility if they want to start saying they did their jobs and didn't just defer to Daddy Trump.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

McTurtle has publicly stated that he opposes and will fight against recess appointments. His brain is cooked and he's on his way out so he doesn't have to worry about getting primaried. I hope he's true to his word.

[–] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I would be astonished if he is good at his word, but I’m desperate so I’ll go ahead and cross my fingers.

[–] 4grams@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago

Ha! This is pure propaganda bullshit, they will not stop him, nor do they care. The court already gave trump a license to do whatever he wants. They knew exactly what was coming and they paved the path, then rolled out a red carpet for him.

This is pure shit, so that they can pretend like there was opposition when he does whatever he wants.

[–] eating3645@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago

Precedent? They don't give a shit about precedent, in 2014 Obama was president. They have no problem flip-flopping depending on whose actions are in question.

[–] vegetal@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this will be an area to follow. I've been curious about the conflicts that will arise in Trump's administration. I have a feeling that the Gaetz nomination then withdrawal is a sign of things to come.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

If they're too busy fighting each other, that would limit the amount of damage they could do I guess

[–] Stiffneckedppl@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

It's not a conservative Supreme Court, is a Fascist enabling Trump Supreme Court with no morals.

There will be no conflict here.

[–] IronJess@lemmy.today 12 points 3 weeks ago

Expect a 5-4 majority where John “Susan Collins” Roberts votes against it so he can pretend he cared.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

The only policies that SCOTUS will fight him on are when he damages capital interests of their collective sugar daddys', and that is the only scenario they will stand up to him.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago

but Trump might test limits by forcing a Senate recess using a rarely invoked constitutional provision

I highly doubt Trump can use Section III here. This whole story is predicated on a process that’s a massive maybe.

If Section III was a possibility then it’s likely that the Senate would just suspend confirmation hearings and just floor vote instead. No need for Section III to be invoked.

It just makes no sense to even pitch this idea.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Narrator: it didn't.