• EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    So Bernie & AOC are the only ones I’ve heard that call for change of the SCOTUS.

    Only ones serving the people & deserving of support in many aspects.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s understandable since they are the most popular.

      My city’s senator called it out on the news and it’s not getting any attention from mainstream media.

      And remember that it’s only been about 48 hours since Biden can legally assassinate anybody so right now, the news is kinda uncertain how to play this out.

    • lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are others that don’t get the coverage, but yeah, pretty fuckin lame anyway. If only for the fact that they don’t get the coverage.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      They have the luxury of saying things should change without providing an actual plausible path to achieving that change.

      AOC championed expanding SCOTUS without worrying about how it could actually be done, or what the consequences would be 10 years down the line.

      Bernie does the same. His public statements frequently gloss over the massive hurdles that make such idealistic ideas implausible, like requiring a super majority which is functionally impossible in today’s political climate.

      To be fair, I do think that it’s important that idealists voice how things could be in a political utopia, if they also include a pragmatic breakdown of what it would take.

      However, virtue signaling in itself without acknowledging reality is also dangerous.

      Lemmy is a perfect example of it. Lots of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and a whole lot of impossible ideas floating around like “there are obvious solutions that establishment politicians just refuse to consider”, when they just aren’t feasible.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The other side of that coin is that if there is no demand for change, no one will be pressured to work out the logistics required. All change starts with people demanding a solution.

        We need a solution right now more than we need a perfect plan of execution. The solution is being called for, to expand the Supreme Court to balance the blatant corruption pouring from the conservative justices. That’s the first step

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          We need a solution right now more than we need a perfect plan of execution.

          I agree. But IMO, the proposed solutions don’t have a chance in hell of being passed, because of the reality of needing a super majority. Either to impeach a SCOTUS judge, or to reform the SCOTUS rules.

          And I think the messaging should focus on the need for a super majority to impeach these corrupt judges, as well as pass reform. The messaging should highlight the republican representatives refusing to cross the aisle to fight this blatant corruption.

          And most importantly, highlight what can be done if voters give the Dems a super majority.

          Yeah, it’s not going to happen, but instead of AOC and Bernie just floating impossible ideas, we need to focus on how voters can give the Dems the power to actually fix these problems. And without that super majority, there is very little that can be done.

          Because the current approach makes the Dems seem ineffective and only serves to disenfranchise voters, when we really need to put a fire under voters to put a fire under the Republican half of our government to either cross the aisle or GTFO.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          My point is that there is no good in this scenario. The proposed solutions are literally impossible.

          See my other reply in this thread for a better explanation.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        They’re feasible with a voter mandate. You get that mandate by building it in your platform and getting elected on it with sufficient margins. The Democratic party, however, is not a revolutionary party but a status quo party and refuses to go that route because they’re afraid of losing. So they just lose by default.