1078
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.

“I worry,” the president told ProPublica in interview published on Sunday. “Because I know that if the other team, the Maga Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

“Maga” is shorthand for “Make America great again”, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. Trump faces 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats but nonetheless dominates Republican polling for the nomination to face Biden in a presidential rematch next year.

In four years in the White House, Trump nominated and saw installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right. That court has delivered significant victories for conservatives, including the removal of the right to abortion and major rulings on gun control, affirmative action and other issues.

The new court term, which starts on Tuesday, could see further such rulings on matters including government environmental and financial regulation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

How?

Are you under the assumption Joe Biden is some sort of wizard?

[-] SARGEx117@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

The supreme court is supposed to be based on certain numbers, when those numbers increased the SC could have been increased, but hasn't been.

Basically all it would take is for the president to decide "hey this court is supposed to be bigger, because the rules it wrote for itself say so" and sign a few things and boom. Increased court size.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago

What fucking coloring book did you read that in

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What? Where did you find executive branch authority to regulate the Supreme Court?

Even if they did, how would a president appoint justices without Congress?

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

I don't know the details, from what I understand FDR was contemplating the same thing, so it does seem like the power to do this is an electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch.

But I honestly don't know the details so I could be wrong, its just something I heard of before.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Congress can pass a law increasing the number of justices. The current law setting it at nine justices was passed in 1869. Congress is inept right now.

[-] jasory@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

"so it does seem like the power to do this is electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch"

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

Court expansion has always been done by Congress, it's interpreted as an extension of it's power to create courts.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

It was blocked after the judges flipped and started approving his programs. It was expected to pass up until that point.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

Fair enough. Just a friendly reminder...

But I honestly don’t know the details so I could be wrong, its just something I heard of before.

It was an off-the-cuff comment and I mentioned in the comment I could be wrong and that I was not certain, so, /shrug.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1078 points (96.8% liked)

News

36429 readers
1118 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS