1249
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 16 Jul 2024
1249 points (99.1% liked)
News
23622 readers
2983 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
he has absolute immunity to whatever courtesy of the supreme court.
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.
Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Yep, Biden is under the delusion that representatives vote on policies based on what their constituents want.
What would you have recommend he do?
Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.
Like he's doing
Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.
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.
it's almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.