Yes but you fail to consider that some guys wrote on a paper like 250 years ago and we’ve decided that everything needs to be viewed through the lens of either “does this agree with an incredibly pedantic and stilted reading of this document” or “what would those historical dudes think about this” - whichever happens to be more politically expedient for you at the moment, but the second one tends to give you more flexibility.

Hey. You can't just use common sense when it comes to our Judicial System. That would be too logical. What next? You gonna ask that our Supreme Court Justices have Ethics Rules!?

What is this world coming to?

It's more a symptom of the FPTP voting system

Europe has viable parties outside the two most popular in any given election cycle, so partisan loyalty is less of a threat to the application of removal proceedings or other punitive measures.

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.

How?

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

Would have had to nuke the filibuster to make it where they could pack the court. That required yes votes from all Democratic senators (only because not a single fucking Republican would vote for it), and Manchin and Sinema refused to do it.

Nothing Biden could have done. We needed more Democrats in Senate seats. That's the game though. Republicans do their best to make us feel like voting doesn't matter, then we don't turn up - making it easier for Republicans to say the government doesn't work.

It’s just that easy ™️

No, we don't. Along with Citizens United, EVERY American with a brain and open eyes is aware these are the absolute most important problems, and they lead to endgame checkmate authoritarianism.

First of all, the Overton Window in America is skewed heavily right. So our centrist Democratic leaders are center right, our Republicans are what most countries would call regressive, extremist, authoritarian right wing, or even fascists.

See, the problem is rightwing extremism has been on a campaign since the civil rights era to take control of the country and undo the progress made since the 1960s.

They installed right wing media. They cut education and tampered with curricula. They gerrymandered. They instituted voter suppression. Their strategy culminated in the Federalist Society influencing the selection of Gorsuch and installation of right wing judges during the Trump administration.

The thing you have to know if you ever want to try and stop extremist, authoritarian, right wing regressives is that they do not hold the same ideals and morals as you and I. They do not play from the same playbook or follow the same rulebook.

They believe that "might makes right," that any ends justify the means, that rules are enacted to protect them and their in group and punish their selected out group. They believe in many cases that their cause is justified by God.

And so any justice who adheres to such zealous principles will see no issue with finding a way to rule in the favor of their side. They may even go so far as to rule with weak or minimal justification. They will be a lot less likely to rule in an unbiased fashion.

My current opinion is that, so far, we have only seen rulings that fall into the "finding a way" category.

I think these justices will incrementally push the envelope on what they can get away with over the upcoming decades.