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 thread.
View all comments View context
47 points

Honest question here … what would you have him do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

There are a few options available. Pack the court, call for ethics inquiries, draw attention to the unconfirmed justices, or literally anything at all. Go on the attack. Be a leader. Demand justice. Biden is content to shrug and say “Ah, well, you see the GOP controls too much, so only if we have all the power can we make things better.”

He’s not governing, he’s campaigning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Go on the attack. Be a leader. Demand justice.

Literally what the article is about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Not at all.

When asked the question directly, Biden paused for a few seconds. Then he sighed and said, “I worry.”

“Because,” he said, “I know that if the other team, the MAGA Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

But he said, “I do think at the end of the day, this court, which has been one of the most extreme courts, I still think in the basic fundamentals of rule of law, that they would sustain the rule of law.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

He could introduce a plan to reform the courts, but it would ultimately have to go through Congress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Step down and be replaced with Bernie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Limit how many years they can stay there?

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
  1. It’s not clear that’s constitutionally possible and guess who gets to decide whether or not it is.
  2. Even if it were that’s not up to the President.

Civics education in this country is fucking pathetic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yeah that’s by design. Wouldn’t want people doing something crazy like paying attention and trying to do something about the institutional cruelty. 🤔

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

asdfasdf

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Civics education in this country is fucking pathetic.

I agree with you but there’s no reason to believe that the people proposing blatantly unconstitutional courses of action are American. In fact there’s no good reason to believe they’re even arguing for this in good faith. There’s a lot of a bad actors on the internet getting paid by various nation states to foment problems.

I tend to put commenters who won’t accept that their plan is outside the bounds of the law into that second category. They KNOW what they’re saying would cause serious problems if it was done but they keep repeating it. They act just like the Russian led MAGAts with the sole difference that they’re pretending to work for Team Blue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I’m Canadian… not everyone on the internet is American.

I just thought the president had the power to sign an executive order or some shit like Trump did for a bunch of things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

What are “two excuses you’ll never hear from a Conservative”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

The Democrats did that a month ago (and in Aug 2022 as well).

Notice that it only has a 1% chance of passing at this point (as it’s got to get through the committee first).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Not a power that belongs to any branch except through a constitutional amendment. The Constitution says life during good behavior.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You may want to actually read the Constitution one day. It makes no mention of “life”. Here’s the text of Article III, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do you want a dictator? Or do you not understand that Biden can’t do that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Take a chill pill. I’m not American. I don’t know everything about your system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s up to Congress, executive branch has nothing to do with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I assumed that he could propose a bill or something. And what about executive orders? How does that work? I saw Donald Trump sign some stuff into law while he was in office.

Sorry, not American. I don’t fully understand how your system works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Pack the court it’s with in his power to add justices to the Supreme Court. Democrats have the majority in the Senate so it can be done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Where are you getting this idea the president can do this? When you see an article on this type of thing at least check the wikipedia page. I understand how the misunderstanding comes about due to the talk around the new deal in history classes but roosevelt only pushed for congress to act. This is something you see a lot with presidential tenures. They will push congress to act but they themselves can only do so much. It is only in recent times executive orders have been used extensively but this is still limited to what congress did not define and the constitution does not define in law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

roosevelt only pushed for congress to act.

That sounds like a good step. Where are Biden’s speeches on pushing Congress to pack the Court?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Nobody wants to be the first to add justices, because that can become a game of one-upmanship where you’d could theoretically end up with a 91 person SCOTUS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What’s wrong with that? More brains the better and when bribes are involved billionaires will have to spend more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You’re not wrong, but the number of justices could be linked to them number of judicial circuits, which now sits at 13.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s literally no worse than simply submitting to a corrupt and illegitimate conservative Court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The court is limited to 9 by law. He’s need a majority in the house and eliminate the filibuster to change that.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 511K

    Comments