• daikiki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just pack the goddamn court. There’s ONE conservative justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who came to power having received more votes than his opponent, and that’s Clarence Thomas, the man whose loyalties can be bought with a luxury vacation and whose wife aided and abetted insurrectionist traitors.

    The ENTIRE conservative wing of the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Every single one of them. And you know what? Thanks to the GOP, it only takes 50 votes to approve a supreme court justice. It used to be sixty, but they changed the rules so they could more conveniently destroy America.

    • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Easier than a constitutional amendment, but it still requires 60 votes in the senate to expand the number of justices in the court.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    4 months ago

    There needs to be a true check to the complete corruption of the supreme court.

    • praechaox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        4 months ago

        The fact that the US has to ‘pack the courts’ to get anything through shows how broken the system is.

        Not that any other country is better but still, you’d think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate

  • Scroll Responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    4 months ago

    Make every US citizen a Supreme Court justice when they turn 18. There’s nothing in the constitution that says you can’t do that. Put cases up to popular vote every year or two. Also, whatever law passed to do this would count as senate approval because who’s going to strike it down… the Supreme Court?

    • bamboo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s nothing in the constitution that says dogs can’t play basketball.

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        There is that basketball court that’s on top of the Supreme Court…does that mean another Air Bud sequel but this time he’s a justice?

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is hilarious. I’m sure someone with more bandwidth than me can point out a dozen reasons why this is bad, but fuck if it isn’t funny and appealing.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    4 months ago

    Bush full of birds, but our hands are still empty…

    Biden had four fucking years to do something, half of that time Dems controlled both House and Senate.

    But he doesn’t start talking about it till right before the election as a promise for something he’ll “look into” in January

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      ·
      4 months ago

      Dems controlled the Senate with the slimmest majority possible. One fucker that owns a coal company was able to tank all meaningful climate bills and there was nothing Biden or anyone else could do about it. You can forget about any progressive policies in that environment, lol. Biden did well with the tools he was given.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        4 months ago

        Dems controlled the Senate with the slimmest majority possible

        And four years ago Biden wouldnt shut up about how only he could work with a Republican Senate.

        Long before we dreamed if 50 seats.

        As soon as that was on the table, it switched to 50 accomplishes everything. And almost immediately after we got that. Biden said it wasn’t enough

        Three big goalpost moves in like 6 months, that shit is noticable to voters and some can remember the last election, and not take Biden on his word again.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’re supposed to be angry at the people preventing progress, not the people trying to create progress.

          • Organichedgehog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Promising progress and intentionally not fulfilling the promise is, indeed, preventing progress. Of course the R’s are awful. The D’s are also shitty and I hold them to a higher standard.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          4 months ago

          Biden has been successful at getting bipartisan legislation passed over the last few years. That doesn’t mean that everything can be done. It horse shit that you think that because he wasn’t able to convince any Republicans and lost a turn coat and coal barron that it’s his fault, or that he mislead with his “working across the aisle” comments.

          To address one of your other comments, this shit is the reason people might believe your a Trump supporter. The same shit rhetoric day in and day out. There’s being critical and there’s being beneficial to Trump. You frequently sit on the Trump benefits side of comments.

        • Orbituary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not sure why you’re getting negative votes. You’re right. But Dems still haven’t learned that the days of working across party lines is a dream from a bygone era.

          Old man dreams.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            You can’t even get moderates to understand if the best we can do is a tie, it’s harder to even manage that.

            Anyone that can look at the last 16 years of the party and say with a straight face we’re making the right moves isn’t worth listening to.

            There is absolutely zero benefit to running Hillary/Biden types rather than an Obama type

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s very disingenuous to say the Democratic party controlled the Senate while having the House majority. The Senate was 48 Democratic, 2 Independents who caucused with the Democratic Senators, and 50 Republicans with the VP casting tie-breakong votes. Very little legislation could be passed because of the filibuster, which needed 51 votes to reform and both Machines and Lineman stating they absolutely would not go along with that. The Senate could approve most nominees, and pass reconciliation (ie 3 types of budget-related bills) once a year. They had no path the expand the court or codify Roe or anything like that with the “majority” they had. We need either 51 Senators who will amend the filibuster (or get rid of it) or 61 Senators to overcome the filibuster to really have the ability to get anything substantial done.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?

        Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?

        What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true? And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn’t we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?

          Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator.

          Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?

          In 2020? We didn’t know yet that Sinema would do a 180 after being elected or that Manchin would be such a dick.

          What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true?

          I already addressed that.

          And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn’t we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?

          Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won’t vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.

          Historically, a contested convention or not running the incumbent is a losing proposition. But I don’t care who the Democratic party nominates in this election, I will vote for them up and down the ballot. The presidential nominees are going to be shitty until we can collectively get our heads out of our asses and turn up it overwhelming numbers in the primaries to get progressives in state legislatures to overhaul our election process. It will take a constitutional amendment to unshitify the presidential election.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator

            Oh ok…

            So despite Biden spending 8 years in Obama’s White House and getting a literal front row seat…

            Biden was just too stupid to realize shit changed?

            Or you think he knew and intentionally lied about it in that primary so he’d be the candidate even tho he knew the only reason to go with him was bullshit?

            Like, you get that’s where your logic leads right?

            Biden is either:

            1. Dumb as shit and if ignorant of modern politics
            2. He knew what reality was like, but lied to become an ineffectual president on purpose. Not just bad because he put himself over the country, but he did it in the middle of a fascists takeover. Literally, there was a failed insurrection days before he took office.

            Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.

            • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              My dude, Biden has had more bipartisan success than Obama did. So I really don’t think you have a winning point here.

              Like, you get that’s where your logic leads right?

              No, but I get that it’s where you insist on taking it.

              Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.

              You have it wrong, this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe. O will vote blue regardless. Will you?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                , this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe

                There are 10s of millions of voters Biden needs to convince, and every indication is he’s not going to be able to convince enough, especially not the tens of thousands up for grabs in battleground states.

                It’s easier to switch out Biden while there’s still time than to convince all those people.

                You’re worried about forcing everyone into making a smart decision. We’re talking about the American public here. We don’t have a good track record with that.

                So rather than gamble on the intelligence of the American public, why not give them a better candidate?

                What’s the benefit of sticking with Biden? How many people already willing to vote for Biden isn’t voting D regardless of candidate?

                You’re right that everyone should vote Biden.

                But that doesn’t matter. The American public does the wrong thing almost constantly, have you been in public lately?

                • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  What you don’t seem to be understanding is that I’m not arguing for Biden being the nominee. I’m arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:

                  Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won’t vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.

                  I’m not objecting to people asking for a better candidate. I’m concerned that those people will fuck over the rest of the country and not vote Democratic if they don’t get one.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      Dems didn’t control both the house and the senate soo… Thats why Dems haven’t been able to pass as many things as they would like.

    • Twitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, seriously considering, so nothing is going to happen. Words mean nothing without action.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yeah, would have loved to see action before now. Still, what specific steps would you rather see this moment?

      At least he’s talking about it and maybe giving people hope that things could settle the fuck down. Lot of people probably voting against Trump, but would help to have more reasons to vote for Biden

        • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s their whole strategy. If they suggest doing shit when they still had time to do anything, they might feel pressured by the populace to do something, and that would upset their owners.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        At least he’s talking about it

        So noble to bring up things the country desperately needs and he has no intention of working towards

        Shits too bad to keep wasting Dem administrations on neoliberals

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Use the powers granted to him as president of the United States…

            He can just fucking arrest Clarence for acts against the US government and throw his ass in Gitmo

            What’s the reason not to? You one of those people that think Republicans are holding back so if we fight back they’re fight even harder?

            They been fighting as hard as they can for decades. And Trump will use every power granted to him (and some that aren’t) if he’s president.

            You don’t fight fascism with both hands tied behind your back unless you’re not worried about fascism winning…

            What was that Biden quote about if he loses the election?

  • ProvableGecko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    PACK THE FUCKING COURT! You’re in that office to serve the people not the fucking system. Doesn’t matter anyway republicans are going to destroy everything they can get their hands on.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yeah, why would you try to actually solve a problem instead of just applying a band-aid that the next administration can rip of again (by incresing the size of the court again)?

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        4 months ago

        Every solution that works within the system would be a band-aid. The entire system is band-aids. The government set up by a group of wealthy white men almost 250 years ago for a population 130 times smaller than it is now simply does not and cannot work in today’s world.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a better chance of that happening than Biden winning.

        Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    4 months ago

    What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.

      Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.

      He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC’s presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I’m mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.

      This might be of interest: How the US supreme court shredded the constitution and what can be done to repair it

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema already said they weren’t going to support that, so what do you suggest the President do without a Senate majority?

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s crazy how often I see people doing this; they’re ardently against Trump’s efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn’t do x y, or z when those aren’t things that fall under his purview.

        What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it’s the neo-liberal I like?

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 months ago

        Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.

        But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          So, in effect: “idk do SOMETHING”? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?

          There’s an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            It does not work that way

            Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              I think I see what you’re saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn’t have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.

            • shottymcb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Biden doesn’t. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh then it’s okay he didn’t even try anything until he realized he was so unpopular people are asking him to step down.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s not what I said bro.

          People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn’t. Fixing SCOTUS isn’t going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.

          • shottymcb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            On that last part, you’re not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an “official act”.

      • sudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Those two should’ve been kicked out of the party a long time ago. Both are up for reelection this year and are not running as a democrat.

        • shottymcb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn’t have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.

          Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it’s not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R’s will respect the filibuster if it’s in their way at this point though.

          • sudo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            You don’t have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won’t betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.

            Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying “It’d be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we’re in power.” is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren’t naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.

      • LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not an American, but increasing SC members would seem like a good thing to do. The more people on it, the harder it is to stack.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law. The President can’t* appoint more without Congress passing a law adding more.

          *Of course, that was before they ruled that Presidents are totally immune from any prosecution, so who the fuck knows now.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law.

            This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.

            • CriticalThought@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”

              • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.

                • shottymcb@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it’s just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.

                  Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it’s not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.

        • sudo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There’s no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it’s critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      it’s almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.

    • EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s the real problem, but too many people here and elsewhere are unaware of the limitations on how the legislative process works. Anything like this is pretty much DOA and purely ceremonial. I’m happy for all of the positive things Biden has been able to get done in spite of such gridlock, but amendment level change in this country is just not at all possible right now.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      And even if he could, there’s literally zero reason to think he would. This is more empty campaign rhetoric like back in 2020.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s the thing that kills me, he makes these promises that he KNOWS he can’t get done, which leads to the whole “Well, Democrats never do anything!” argument.

        What he NEEDS to say is “Here’s what I want to do, but I need your help throwing out the bastards in the House and Senate blocking it! Here are their names, let’s get them gone!”

  • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    4 months ago

    The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          But practically speaking there’s no way for him to enforce it without threatening violence and there’s no chance that would go over well even with other democrats

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The most amazing ideas always come when the election draws close. But he can’t implement any of them because there is no time.

    Good thing Biden already fulfilled his previous election promises. Student loans are a thing of the past.

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.

      So we need record turnout for that. Vote.

    • sudo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem ofc being that congress fights him tooth and nail for anything he wants done, but yeah… all his fault.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Not all his fault, but he definitely shares much of the blame, largely due to a lack of leadership on the topic.

        What the president can do in those situations is focus the discussion, he has the highest pulpit of any politician, he should’ve been using it to move the frame of discussion and shift party strategy to make court reform a stronger pillar of the party platform. When the president says something it gives other party members permission to hammer on an idea.

        Instead he lingered on his dusty, worthless notions of bipartisanship and “reaching across the aisle” and wasted all his political capital defending a genocide.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        He could have done what hes trying to do now three years ago. Why did he wait until there were LESS democrats in office before trying?