this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
346 points (99.4% liked)

politics

30937 readers
2043 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
 

The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using an emergency law.

Delivering a major blow to President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that he exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs using a law reserved for a national emergency.

The justices, divided 6-3 held that Trump's aggressive approach to tariffs on products entering the United States from across the world was not permitted under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Lol, you are correct, I just rewatched it. He was debating with Jerry at the dinner about turning it into a "real charity" which quickly devolved into people showering him with praise in order show worthiness of his "generosity" (jeez, this is sounding like how I imagine the Board of Peace will operate...). When Kruger calls him in, he still chickens out and gives the money back unprompted and plays the victim of religious persecution for his father's celebrating of Festivus instead of Christmas.

I don't know if George would have went through with it, because his cowardice, paranoia, and desire to not actually do anything likely would have won out, so I still think he's less evil as he at least somewhat confesses to being a fraud and he returns the money without a fuss, which doesn't seem like the behavior of a FIFA Peace Prize winner.