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
[–] 72 points 3 years ago (38 children)

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

If he really worries about that, and is not just scaring people to vote for him, then he has a responsibility to enlarge the court.

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    I'd argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election, but if the court can't uphold the rule of law, it should be fixed (and expansion seems like the obvious solution) or replaced.

    The procedural question on this one is whether he could shrink the court to boot say... Thomas, then expand it again to replace him with someone less obviously corrupt. Republicans fail to confirm a replacement? We'll shrink the court a little more. Obviously, this won't happen, but I'm interested to know if it's possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago*

    Shrinking it (through established legal channels) is impeachment and removal which has a high bar. Enlarging it is just passing a law, which is only hard because the senate has a policy (not a law) to effectively not pass laws without supermajorities. The latter could be done with a simple majority of politicians with a spine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I’d argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election

    Honestly I feel like that needed a civil war level response, that really should not have been allowed/normalized, regardless of which party initiated the block.


    whether he could shrink the court to boot say… Thomas, then expand it again to replace him

    I couldn't agree to that, that's way too manipulative and dishonors the previous selections from previous presidents.


    I would expect him to just expand the court by two seats, if he was going to try to do something along these lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    dishonors the previous selections from previous presidents.

    To what degree should prior selections be honored/respected if the presidents in question won under questionable circumstances, e.g. George W. Bush's election in 2000 and the stopping of the Florida recount, or Donald J. Trump's election in 2016 after his call for foreign interference, alongside James Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton just before the election?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    To what degree should prior selections be honored/respected if the presidents in question won under questionable circumstances

    It would depend on the circumstances, but it would have to be very unique and extreme circumstances. The goal would be to avoid a Tit for Tat downward spiral to Civil War.

    George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and the stopping of the Florida recount,

    I believe that the mob that raided the office should not have allowed the vote counting to have been stopped. IMO it gave a green light to whomever set that up to go forward and do something along the lines of January 6th.

    Having said that, no I wouldn't for this situation. Almost, but no.

    or Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016 after his call for foreign interference, alongside James Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton just before the election?

    No. Simple political interference wouldn't be enough, we're talking about extreme circumstances only.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    My preference would be to simply enlarge the court by a few seats, nominate some additional candidates that exceed the number of available seats by 2 or 3, and then hold some sort of Survivor-like competition to see who captures the seats. I would also accept a Hunger Games style competition for this first new court session.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    High-level politics should involve physical challenges. Put the judge chairs up a tall ladder and across a balance beam and we won't see so many justices dying on the bench. At least from old age rather than balance-beam accidents.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    How?

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (18 children)

    Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (17 children)

    To correct for the explicitly political gain one team is solely interested in for their own authoritarian redefinition of established precedent that also had their nominees lie their way into their SC positions at the expense of the Constitution and our freedoms. That's the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (16 children)

    you don't think by expanding the court the "other side" isn't just doing the same exact thing you just described? so where does it stop?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    The problem is that we're at a point where Republicans are not hesitating to lie, cheat, and steal their way to power. They have demonstrated quite clearly that they no longer have an interest in playing fair.

    We need Democrats who aren't afraid to fight back or we'll lose our Democracy in America and eventually fall to fascism.

    There may not be a good ending here, but it's time to draw a line in the sand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    It's a sad state when people actually believe one party has a better moral compass than the other. The reality is one party lies better than the other, but it's two sides of the same coin. I blame gullible people that can't do anything but parrot what the media tells them to. Sadly, that's the majority of society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago*

    Dude... both sides are absolutely not the same. Just look at the policies each side is trying to implement. On one hand, you've got Democrats trying to do things like forgive student debt and raise the minimum wage. On the other, you've got Republicans focusing almost solely on a culture war they've started just because they hate people who are different than they are.

    I could go on and on with examples here. While it's true that people parrot things they're told to believe by the media (like pretty much everyone who watches Fox and actually believes it's real news).

    Our current Republican party has zero plans to actually help anyone they supposedly represent. It's insane to me that anyone could look at what they're doing and think it's somehow beneficial to society...but I guess that's because I don't think of hurting people as a way to make my own life better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    If you look at the history of people who were put up for nomination as a Supreme Court member, you'll see that what you said is not true.

    The persons being submitted have a distinct qualification for fairness that one side puts up, versus the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    There's the problem. You think one party is inherently bad and one is inherently good. That's completely an idiotic take. But you're too stupid to see that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (5 children)

    The problem is you see this is a party issue rather than an American issue. Seems more like the only idiotic take here is your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    That's my entire point. It isn't a party issue. The whole system needs flipped on its head. You've formed a rebuttal without even understanding the argument. Why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    One party is objectively and cumulatively 'bad' in almost any comparative context by a reasonable observer, and you projected your own views onto others by making assumptions about how they define one party bad on party good. Your point was to dilute the issue so you can prop up the 'both sides' delusion while hurling personal insults at the op. Yeah, the whole system could use a reboot, but playing to that point as gotcha drive-by comments without solutions is just spewing word salad for the sake of typing more words. You are trolling.

    The argument seems entirely ost on you in the first place. You don't understand how your assumptions and insults are the problem rather than 'the point'. Why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Dude, your entire comment is based off assumptions. You think I don't understand the argument yet here you are completely clueless. You don't even know what 'the point' is. You're just mad because how dare someone criticize your favorite party. You've got one party full of bullshit and the other full of incompetence. If you support either one, you're an idiot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    You don't have to believe that to believe that the parties are not the same. "Inherent good" is a philosophical construct that isn't present in the real world- adopting a fatal nihilism in the face of that is the true idiocy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    What options are there to fix this active extremist right wing slow motion coup that is trying to overthrow our Constitution by destroying established legal precedent?

    This is not a one side versus the other political sport contest, this is far beyond any such sophomoric simpleton bullshit.

  • source
  • parent