• davelA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    President Nothing Will Fundamentally Change has made zero moves in the last 3.5 years to pack the court that overturned Roe v. Wade.

    • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the title is referring to the chance of 2 existing replacements, not packing the court.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, he should have…had one of the conservative justices murdered? WTF do you want him to do

      • Phegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        You know the president can add justices, right? Court expansion is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and approved by the Senate. So no, he doesn’t need to kill a justice, he can just increase the court size.

        The Constitution does not specify the size of the court.

          • SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I missed the part where Dems are somehow simultaneously the weak opposition party 100% of the time, and when they do have all three branches in control, there’s always somehow one Democrat that they can’t whip a vote from and tanks the whole bill.

            Why. Won’t. They. Fight. Back. Against. The. Republicans.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          And then the next conservative President will pack it again, and the Supreme Court will become a joke. There’s a reason norms exist…

              • TheOubliette
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                5 months ago

                “We can’t fight because they might fight back” is a poor political strategy and will guarantee that they fight you while you lose because everyone knows you don’t have their backs.

                The Dems are incapable of doing that fighting at the moment. Their strategy is to, once in power, begin the excuse-making for why they can’t do anything. They are, however, lying to you. They pick someone like Manchin to be the whipping boy and put zero pressure on him, run no party strategy of, “we will get that done because we won’t support candidates that fall out of line”, i.e. a strategy that actually creates the promised policies over a period of multiple election cycles.

                Sometimes this is because the policy is seen as a useful wedge issue for getting votes. More useful to them than actually creating the policy.

                Either way, the Democrats will continue to be the party of capitulation and excuse-making while conditions degrade if their grassroots members don’t organize to demand change and provide consequences when their demands aren’t met. The logic you’re currently following is the polar opposite of that and will ensure the status quo downward spiral.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Here’s how I see it:

                  1. Dems don’t get anything done
                  2. Reps are worse
                  3. Vote Dem
                  4. Profit?

                  Honestly, the same could probably be said for Republicans as well, though they do occasionally get stuff done.

                  So why do people keep supporting the stupid twp-party system? If every election is so important that we can’t vote third party, when will we end the two-party stranglehold?

                  I recently watched an interview of Larry Sharpe by Sabby Sabs where he said,

                  Why are you burning down the house that you’re going to buy back in two years?

                  This was talking about libertarian party infighting, but it applies to the two major parties as well. Why mess up the government that you’re going to have majority control of in the next cycle? Likewise, why expand the power of a position that’s going to change hands soon?

                  Just say no.

          • Phegan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nothing is stopping them from doing it anyways. Let’s keep the norms while a rogue court takes our rights.

      • davelA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Why are you asking me when I just told you? We’ve been saying it for the last three years: pack the court.

  • StinkySocialist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Damn. Biden should really tell that to the guy running against Trump. He’s really dropping the ball.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “The next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees — two more,” Biden said at a campaign fundraiser in Los Angeles, adding that Trump had already appointed two justices who are “very negative in terms of the rights of individuals.”

    Biden’s comments came at a campaign fundraiser in Los Angeles where he appeared alongside former President Barack Obama, actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts and comedian Jimmy Kimmel.

    Kimmel noted that almost two years ago, conservative justices appointed by Trump played a pivotal role in overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion access.

    One of the others drives around in a $267,000 gift on vacations,” the comedian added, referring to controversies surrounding conservative Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who came under scrutiny for previously undisclosed trips given by a GOP megadonor.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he would not probe Alito for the reported upside-down flag, but urged the conservative justice to step aside from two pending cases involving Trump and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

    Chief Justice John Roberts also rejected a request to meet with Democratic senators to discuss Supreme Court ethics in light of the flag controversy.


    The original article contains 471 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!