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.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the most scandal-ridden judge was appointed under H.W. Bush. They’re not a particularly worthy bunch even aside from shenanigans.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

      • Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • jasory@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              “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.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year 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.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

    • Occamsrazer@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Goo_bubbs@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Goo_bubbs@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year 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.

                • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year 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.

                  • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.