this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
499 points (99.6% liked)

politics

21001 readers
3374 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

A federal court has ruled that Trump's unprecedented firing of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox was illegal and ordered her reinstatement.

Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the President can’t terminate NLRB members at will, directly rebuking Trump’s self-image as a “king” or “dictator.” She state, “no one in our system of government was meant to be king – the President included – and not just in name only.”

Wilcox sued, arguing her removal violated labor law, leaving the board without a quorum needed to rule on cases. The White House defended the termination, claiming Wilcox was a "far-left appointee with no place in the Trump administration."

Labor leaders condemned the move as undermining NLRB independence and halting federal labor law enforcement.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 107 points 2 days ago (1 children)

She was not a far-left appointee, she just represented unions in her legal work beforehand. She was/is the first black member of the board, however.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 2 days ago (4 children)

MAGA don't know what the far left even is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

If Ronald Reagan came back, MAGA would call him "far left" too.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They think it begins at allowing women to continue living.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm astonished every time I see a woman wearing a maga cap. Do they hate themselves?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

In a sense, yes. They hate other women more.

Some feel that they’ll be an exception.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

The face-eating leopards are circling...

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

women can do what!?
-maga

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I think a lot of MAGA, and other Republicans, don't realize that the 'radical left' democrats, would be seen as right-wing by many other western nations' standards. And the whole thing about them being the 'leader of the free world' is sickening and hilarious at the same time.

Canada is 11th in the Cato Human Freedom Index, while the US, the 'freest nation in the world is 17th'. They have no business talking to us, or ANYONE ahead of them in that index, about being free. And most of the nations ahead of them in that freedom index, are from Europe, the 'socialist nations' as MAGA and others like to call them.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2024

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

My dad thinks Kamala Harris is a communist hellbent on the destruction of America. Even as she was campaigning on "status quo/stay the course".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Kamala Harris is a communist

🤣

Meanwhile, my parents's WeChat is saying Democrats are causing the "Migrant Crisis"

And we are immigrants. 🙄

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Dude I'm saying. She was honestly one of the most responsible choices for President I've ever seen, and I'm a goddamn anarchist. I hated voting for a cop on principle but I did it anyway because if your choices are a) an educated professional who's diplomatically respected and seems qualified to lead the executive branch, and b) whatever this fucking is, yes I'll take stability thank you.

I'm having to prep a detailed argument for my dad to disavow Trump because he's just so goddamn terrible in so many ways, how can I keep respecting a man who supports him? But I'll just get written off as victim to the woke mind virus like I'm being gaslit by every major news organization other than Fox. I'm serious, I've got like 50+ tabs open on my phone waiting to go into a document.

It's so distressing

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I've stopped talking politics with my parents. My dad and I argued for hours about the pull out from Afghanistan and he just couldn't see that the Taliban takeover was going to happen no matter what once US troops were gone. He was, and is, convinced it was all Bidens fault. Somehow Trump was gonna bomb the Taliban out of existence when no president had in 20yrs. Or at least keep them from taking over.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the one living in an alternate reality.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's what they want you to think.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I know and that makes it so much worse.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Wilcox’s reinstatement is a win for democracy—Trump’s illegal power grab deserved this legal hammer.

🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK, so a judge ruled that Trump did something illegal.
Where are the consequences?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago (4 children)

A federal court ruled that Donald Trump’s abrupt firing of a former senior official at the top US labor watchdog was illegal, and ordered that she be reinstated.

Very first thing in the article, dude.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

That's not a consequence, dude.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The real question is, will they let her take her job back or continue to block her in defiance of the courts.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Guess we'll find out. Doubt it'll be in the paper though.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The point is, what is the mechanism to enforce it? What is preventing the Administration from saying "We're not gonna a reinstate her?"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Indeed. The whole American "checks and balances" has turned out to be entirely based on good faith, and non-existant in practice. There are no actual repercussions, especially not when you own the judiciary and the legislature.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So, she shows up for work tomorrow and DOGE says "Sorry, you don't work here anymore". What can she do about it? Elon Musk and Donald Trump pay no heed to laws, why would they respect a court order?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I didn't know dude. I'm not God.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know. If you were, you could solve this Trump problem once and for all....

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

With pleasure, too

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK. Will she be reinstated?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A federal court ruled that Donald Trump’s abrupt firing of a former senior official at the top US labor watchdog was illegal, and ordered that she be reinstated.

Very first thing in the article, dude.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What's supposed to happen and what will happen are not necessarily the same thing, especially with this administration.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

If we get to the President flagrantly defying the Judicary, we'll have something called a "constitutional crisis" on our hands, where pretty much anything and everything is thrown onto the table. Then, the battle for liberty truly begins

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

K. I have no control over that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, you don't, but you also shouldn't just assume that a court ruling is going to be followed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So was it a rhetorical question originally, or...?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Pretty much

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Trump has completely gutted the NLRB

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

Cool story judge, but I have the Supreme Court here saying the president actually is a king. Sorry.