873
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
873 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1457 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And what would stop the next Republican president from packing the court further to have a conservative majority again?
And this goes back and forth until there are 100s on the Supreme Court
Biden not doing something out of principle is not a guarantee Trump won't do it. The contrary is often true.
Packing the court solves nothing as it can be immediately reversed as soon as a Republican is in office.
In the case they reverse it then we are back at square 1 except we had a more progressive supreme court for a bit. I don't see how this makes our situation worse. I guess we should also give up and never bother with executive orders since they can just be undone when the Republicans get in
It's moot, anyway, as the President doesn't have the power to add Justice vacancies. That's Congress's job.
The new surpreme court could chance the laws so that is no longer possible.
Undo the current surpreme court laws, and weaken the powers of the president before Trump gains power.
I hate this reasoning. They would do it anyway! They attempted a coup. You really think they would stop because there's some gentleman's agreement not to add more?
Trump and the GOP have always used these gentleman's agreements against the Democrats when they are in power and ignored them when it was their time. Obama did the same shit when he was in office not forcing through the supreme court appointee.
One thing that people seem to be missing is that the President cannot add SCOTUS vacancies. Only Congress can.
And it is the President's responsibility to nominate justices, so if the majority party just nullifies every single nominee until they can secure the presidency, we shouldn't pretend that they aren't obstructing the operation of government to try to seize power.
All of this "but the government actually works this one specific way" argument isn't much of a real argument when the issue is that bad faith actors are exploiting and weaponizing the way our government works in order to destroy it and to turn it into a dictatorship.
Dems had majority in the house and senate. If they managed to get all dems to agree (which is not guaranteed) in the Senate on the appointee) then in all likelihood they would be able to increase the size with congress
They'd have to have a supermajority in both, which is an impossibility with current gerrymandering. Really, I think the Judicial branch needs a serious overhaul from the bottom up. 9 unelected lifetime appointees getting to decide what the law means for over 300 million people is ridiculously easy to exploit, which we're seeing now.
They would have to do the nuclear option and crush the filibuster. I agree with you though on the lifetime appointees thing. They really should have terms and elections