288
Progressives Prep $10 Million Campaign to Expose 'MAGA Supreme Court'
(www.rollingstone.com)
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 14 May 2024
288 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
5483 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
What kind of moron thinks the sitting President has any say in how the supreme court decides? I mean maybe a bit if that President has appointed a new Justice, but even then, not really.
It’s mostly idiots in the flyover states whose votes literally have more power due to the vagaries of the us electoral system. If that wasn’t a thing, and gerrymandering was declared unequivocally illegal, we would have a much better chance of rational leadership now and in the long run. But, infuriatingly, our system is intentionally designed to be undemocratic in a few very important ways.
It is unfortunately extremely common for the average American to think that the current president has direct and immediate control over quite a lot of things which they do not. Like inflation and gas prices. Or who the DOJ prosecutes and for what. And on and on.
Sadly, most of them are adults who are beyond education because they are too stuck in the team-based mentality. Hopefully the younger ones can still learn.
There are many, many, many low-info voters that think exactly like that.
Sadly.
I've seen bothsideser clowns on Lemmy write this. With 100% certainty they know better, but I assume they continue writing it because it fools some idiots some of the time.
Presidents can push to have decrepit old justices from their own party retire so he/she can replace them with a younger model before the next election.
It was literally in his power to expand the court and appoint uncorrupt judges before Dobbs happened.
There had been almost 30 years of warnings that right wing activist judges wanted to overturn Roe and several years of people suggesting ways within the power of him and the Congressional majority he leads to prevent it.
No, it literally was not. Again, POTUS is not an emperor! Congress has to do it by passing legislation.
Yeah, all that link gives me is an obvious lie. Not the best sign as to the truthfulness of the actual article..
I see. So you live in Europe and your goal is not to learn how the US Constitution stipulates that Congress, not POTUS, determines the number of justices, but to spread misinformation in the US, presumably with the goal of creating political division.
From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Some history: https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
Absolutely not. Cool it with the bigoted snap judgments, please.
So when there's something necessary that he refuses to do, you're going to pretend that his urging does nothing, making him powerless to influence Congress?
I bet you don't give him credit for any of his signature bills that Congress passed either, right? Right??
Do you claim to be a United States citizen?
Nope. That doesn't mean that I'm some shady operative spreading misinformation to destabilize American democracy like you're insinuating, though.
That's just you trying to use bigotry to prop up your bad arguments.
What "arguments"? This isn't a debate. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a political view like you are. I'm debunking your misinformation with the fact that only the Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices, through legislation, including links to sources--but anyone can simply read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution and the history of how Congress set up the courts to understand that this is the case.
The fact that you keep insisting falsely that Biden could have done it himself shows that you have a political agenda. The fact that you aren't from the US and keep repeating a false, divisive talking point in spite of it being disproven shows that you have a political agenda. We aren't falling for it. Go back to twitter and FB where you'll find more gullible marks to buy your propaganda.
That pretty much says in a very loud voice that the EU wants trump bsck
Nope, this is the choice of the site and has nothing to do with the content of the article.
It's them choosing that they'd rather ban the entire EU than follow common sense pro-consumer cookie regulations.
Most of the EU is actually to the LEFT of Biden, let alone a literal fascist like Trump.
It was not.
Congress would first have to remove the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.
That was in congressional Democrats' hands. But in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats, all of whom would need to actually vote with their party. Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever. We had the majority. Just enough Democrats preferred the return of coat hanger abortions to relegating a procedural relic of Jim Crow to the shitpile of history where it has always belonged.
That cap was one supreme court judge per circuit court. As there are 13 circuits now, it's precedent FOR expanding the court, not against.
Ah, the eternal "we can't do the obviously right thing because of the filibuster" Dem leadership excuse. Turns out that, like most of their other excuses, that's complete hogwash
Again, not true. That's just another "we are powerless to change anything because the system won't let us" copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.
To quote the article linked above:
This is a very interesting distinction. Thank you for this info.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Democrats could have ended the filibuster with a simple majority, but they didn't want to. They preferred allowing Republicans to win on abortion to getting rid of their procedural excuse for inaction.
And I'm saying that they didn't even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want. They don't need 50 votes to permanently dismantle it when they can already do it at will on a case by case basis.
My reading of the law differs from yours on this, but I believe we agree more broadly that Democrats desperately need to stop making excuses and get out of their own way.