LOS ANGELES – President Biden on Saturday night said he expects the winner of this year’s presidential election will likely have the chance to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court – a decision he warned would be “one of the scariest parts” if his Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, is successful in his bid for a second term.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The current president could name six Supreme Court Justices today, if the Democrats were better at this.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      I know it feels good to say “Pack the court”, but it would turn it into a clown show with every new president adding double what the previous president added.

      Yes yes this is where you say it’s already a clown show, and then I say it’d be even more, etc.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Republicans will do whatever benefits them anyway. They haven’t needed to expand the court because there’s been a conservative majority for basically forever.

        Limiting your actions because the Republicans will act in bad faith in the future is never going to get you anywhere.

        • D1G17AL@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          “We go high when they go low.” Has been the dumbest fucking slogan. Sorry, not sorry but that tactic backfired so badly that is hilarious. With these gullible fools we need to fight fire with fire. They don’t respond to logic or reason. They respond to false “gotcha” moments and memes.

      • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yup. Until at some point the American people got fed up with the clown show. But some of us have been waiting for them to get fed up with it for quite some time. Maybe this would exasperate the issue to the point where we actually do something.

        • Aphelion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Please give me a hypothetical example of how “the American people” can actually change the fundamental structure of the 3 branches of government. Like seriously, I would love to know how.

          • D1G17AL@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Constitutional Convention enacted by State Governors and State Legislatures with the support of the majority of each states population.

            • Aphelion@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              So if enough people in every state complained about SCOTUS to their state legislature, the state legislature can force the people’s opinion up to the Governors who can do something at the federal level? I guess I’m just not seeing the actual legal mechanism that would be used to force any kind of change.

              My understanding is any change to the structure of government at that level requires 2/3rds congressional majority.

              • Wrench@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                And people act like “the people” want this in the first place. Nearly half of “The people” voted for Trump, and probably will again. The US is not united against the fascists. Hell, in this thread itself, you have someone blaming the Dems for not waving a magic wand and somehow assigning 6 more scotus memberswhen we don’t even have a majority in either the house or the senate, and taking such a drastic move with obvious dangers would certainly be objectionable to many.

            • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Congratulations, the constitution now allows for the execution of gay people.

              I’m not sure how people don’t get this. There are already plenty of avenues for the creation of popular change in the current democratic system. The problems we have today largely exist because they are popular.

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              And how do we think that’d work out?

              If we really did get to rip up the Constitution and start over, who do you think would get to write it? You think Bernie Sanders is just going to stroll up with a pen and start setting things straight?

          • Saurok@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Step 1 would be organizing and unionizing our workplaces (with a focus on strategic industries like food production, railways, construction… the stuff that really makes the gears turn). The next step would be aligning the collective bargaining contracts negotiated by those unions to expire at the same time. Solidarity strikes were made illegal in the US, so unions are only ‘allowed’ to strike against employers who employ their union members. The collective bargaining contract expiration dates would need to be far enough in the future to allow the union to build up a nice little strike fund, enough to pay each member a stipend to survive off of for a month or two. Then the unions and their members need to negotiate with each other and vote to decide on general strike demands to change the current system (my preference would be on revolutionary unionism to end capitalism and put industry in the hands of workers democratically, but you could also do things like change FPTP voting to something else, or really any demand you want to propose that you think could make our country better for us). Then when the contracts expire, the general strike begins. Unions issue their demands on behalf of the workers and the gears turn from there. The only real way to create fundamental change to the system is to use collective organizing and collective action. What I’ve said above is just one way to go about it and I think it’s a pretty democratic way to do it, but there are definitely others (communist vanguard party, democratic socialism via electoral politics, etc.). The UAW is actually advocating for the general strike method and have set a date of May 1st, 2028 (international labor day) for other unions to align their contracts accordingly.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        packing the court would set the billionaires giving the court gifts back like 20 years. I don’t buy the nonesense about how its a “norm” that’s shit the media made up out of pocket. There used to be 6 justices. That is the original precedent.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Not quite.

      If you mean that all six conservatives could be impeached today, there really is only damning evidence against two of them right now and impeachment has to start in the Republican-controlled House and get a 2/3 vote in the Senate, none of which have a chance of happening.

      If you mean that Democrats could expand the Court to 15 today, that also has to go through the Republican House first, as well as centrist Democrats in both houses who might view that as too extreme. I am an advocate for expanding the Court, but I would stop at 13.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 month ago

        I also think 13 is a good number because that would be 1 Supreme Court justice for each circuit court

        But getting to that will be hard and not to mention unless a cap is put in place (I prefer tying it to the number of circuit courts) then the next person who scoots in could expand it further with less push back due to it having been done just recently

        The last thing we need is every president who scoots into office appointing more and more justices until it gets out of hand

        • evatronic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think an “arms race” that forever expands the court – and thus dilutes the individual relevance of a single Justice – is a good thing.

          A single Justice dying or retiring should not be the sort of thing to reshape the entire country.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 month ago

            “A good thing” is too strong a statement, but I could agree with “not worse than the status quo.”

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The way you do it is to - BOOM! - expand the Court to 13 on Day 1 of the next Biden administration, if Democrats also have both houses of Congress, nuking the Fillibuster if necessary, but delay it’s effect until September 2026.

          Then, go to Republicans and give them a choice. Either we can reform the SC and institute meaningful reform, or Republicans can watch Biden appoint four judges in their 40’s to lifetime appointments, and they can wait until they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress to make a tit-for-tat response. (Biden’s appointments would only be subject to those term limits if the amendment passes before he makes the appointment.)

          We can do a lot in an amendment, including instituting term limits, a firm code of ethics, a better process for confirmation where the Senate can’t just ignore an appointment, and formally fixing the size of the SCOTUS to match the number of appellate courts.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Democrats are never as good at predicting something as they are when they are predicting the things they cannot accomplish

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or if he’d have six Justices assassinated as an official act, making him immune to prosecution according to the Republicans.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Obviously that’s a terrible idea, but what is stopping a dictator from doing that in the US? The Supreme Court is the arbiter of whether things are legal. Literally what is stopping a dictatorial president from killing or threatening the Justices and replacing them with cronies?

        Yet another argument for term limits on Justices.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      One, they haven’t had the votes since Biden became President. Two, that doesn’t fix anything. If we had 6 more liberal justices today they can’t just say, “Hey, let’s undo the bad decisions from the last 15 years.” They need to address the issues that come before them in regular fashion. If the Democrats had the votes they need to just start codifying everything we take for granted AND institute reforms (e.g. no more fucking filibuster, no stock trades for elected officials, and a SCOTUS code of ethics).

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Adding justices does fix one thing: more justices mean that for billionaires to bribe them it requires bribing a lot more of them.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            there’s only hundreds of billionaires and 52 weeks in a year. Even if they can pay them all a 100 million each year you still have to spend time with them and take them on your yacht to you private sex trafficking island. It takes a lot more work than just the money up front. The direct gifts and freebies are just the tip of the iceberg.

            • JWBananas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              The entirety of gifts received by the justices over the past 2 decades is about $3 million. About $2.4 million of that went to Clarence Thomas.

              Thomas was bought for $120,000/year.

              Even if that’s just the tip of the iceberg, and the total monetary equivalent compensation were say, $1,000,000/yr… Over 20 years, that’s still only 2% of a billion dollars.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s only around $100,000 to bribe justices. One billion dollars could bribe 100,000 justices at that rate.

          And that rate is only that high because Clarence Thomas skews the numbers with how vast the bribes he has accepted have been.

          • Brokkr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            You added a zero somewhere.

            Also, it seems like justices are charging on the order of 1 million, so a billion dollars gets 1000 judges. Still plenty for them to get whatever they want.

            • Crikeste@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Judges aren’t charging anywhere even close to a million dollars. You might be thinking of Clarence Thomas, who I pointed out as an outlier.

              And even if I was off on my math, we aren’t getting more than 10,000 justices. Ever. Never. And even if we did, my math was based off only 1 billion dollars. A few people have MUCH more than that. So with that in mind, you’re going to need about 100,000 justices anyway just to outweigh the influence of money.

              • Brokkr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                Oh, wow, sorry. It’s just Thomas that’s throwing it way off. My bad.

                Also, I wasn’t disagreeing with your point at all. You’re absolutely right. Just that somewhere you had an extra zero, but it doesn’t change your point at all: judges are cheap and a billionaire could easily buy them all for a small fraction of their wealth.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Don’t worry, I’ve been told if we just keep electing right-wing corporate neolibs they’ll eventually magically change one day and reverse their drift to the right.

      No one has been able to actually articulate how that wotks, but that’s the plan. Apparently.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Weve got to implement term limits on justices now that people are starting to figure out lifetime appointments are easily gamed with younger justices.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Certainly not in the current political climate. You think a good chunk of Republicans can get on board with that when they have a 6-3 majority in the court right now?

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            you are the political climate. If you folks would put half the effort you put into trying to convince people everything is hopeless into fighting for reform like the people of the past who successfully achieved reform

            • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Let’s say you can get the 2/3 of Congress. Are you really going to get 3/4 of the states legislatures?

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I guess lets give up and have a trump appointed supreme court for decades.

                • spongebue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  And that’s an excellent segue to what I was going to bring up upstream: we only have so many resources to drive voters. There are plenty of relatable issues that can drive people to the polls so Trump doesn’t have another opportunity to appoint anyone. Removing SCOTUS lifetime appointments isn’t going to do it. But if we can keep a Democrat in the White House and control in Congress, we may still have lifetime appointments but at least there will be reasonably sane people in the court.

                  And before you say anything about a false choice fallacy, campaign resources and attention of the voting base are finite.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s true. It was a lot of effort to get this far. “Oh no, someone won’t do it for me” is stupid.

              • spongebue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                As opposed to, like, passing my own constitutional amendment because someone won’t do it for me?

                What exactly is a realistic path to make a real one happen?

            • obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m pretty confident they weren’t born before 1789, when that amendment was proposed.

              Pretty good odds no amendment has been proposed and ratified in that person’s lifetime.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just think, if some sit home or vote third party like they did in 2000 and 2016, we could hand over at least two more SC seats and our rights and privacy with them.

    Letting good be the enemy of perfect is a fool’s errand. And we have an illegal war, a slew of bad rulings, and five lost opportunities on the SC to prove it. So, yeah go vote for Jill, Cornie or Bobby. Just don’t come bitching to me if Trump wins.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    All of them should be retired and let an entire new crew have a shot at it. Term limits for ALL

    • njm1314@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      You shut your goddamn mouth about Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. They are Angels sent from jurisprudence heaven.

        • SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Seriously, how are people not seeing this??? We have liberal justices pushing 70, who refused to resign before the “most important election of our lifetimes”.

          We have fascists having their old ones resign for young bootlickers while Dems are about to repeat RBG twice.

          Oh let me guess, waah the dems didn’t have a majority, how could we expect them to utilize the weapons of politics, waah.

          Oh except those times we did have a majority but it doesn’t count because here’s always one spoiler vote that can’t be whipped. Guess we just have to keep watching the slide into fascism as Dems claim to be the great protector of democracy no matter who wins.

          And yet some people have the audacity to call it a BotH SiDeS argument.

          You know what we called people like these Democrat leaders in times of strife?

          Collaborators.

          And yes, I am am voting blue. So fucking tell me, blue MAGA, what are the dems going to do to stop the slide into fascism?

  • Skates@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    Hell, he may name 5 if he guns down 5 of the current ones. Crime doesn’t matter when you’re the president, and the next 5 you name can agree with you. Or they can also be gunned down.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The next president, not the current one, since the ones we have will wait decades before letting a Democrat replace them.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    based on the ages of the two presidential candidates, we are also looking at the best chance in recent memory for a vice president to become president

    • Delusional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      I wouldn’t put it past them to say it’s too close to the 2028 election to appoint any new justices if a Democrat wins.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    LOS ANGELES – President Biden on Saturday night said he expects the winner of this year’s presidential election will likely have the chance to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court – a decision he warned would be “one of the scariest parts” if his Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, is successful in his bid for a second term.

    The event featured Hollywood stars like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, as well as former President Barack Obama.

    Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel moderated a conversation with Biden and Obama, and the two presidents talked about the impact that Trump had on issues like abortion rights by naming conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

    Trump named three justices during his term – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh and Amy Coney Barrett – cementing the conservative majority on the bench.

    Biden, who flew to Los Angeles on the heels of attending the G7 summit in Italy, did not expand upon how the two vacancies on the court would come about.

    “The next president – they’re going to be able to appoint a couple of justices,” Biden said in Philadelphia at the launch of an effort to court Black voters.


    The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • retrospectology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    They’re not going to retire until it’s a republican in office.

    Only option for Democrats is expanding the courts, which neolibs will not do, because then they’d have fewer excuses for not doing their job.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Biden is older than the two oldest Supreme Court Justices, and Trump is more or less the same age, so it’s more like the next Vice President will get to name two Supreme Court Justices… :)

    Biden - 81
    Trump - 78
    Thomas - 75
    Alito - 74

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, it depends on how many we whack, doesn’t it.

    Uh . . that is . . . how many . . . um . . others . . . uhhhhh . . . that is, to say - in a, in a manner of speaking, if y’know . . . ummm. . . . y’know life is a . . a fleeting . . it’s, it’s very . . . so. . . Yeah.

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    1 month ago

    Pulling out that scare tactic again? Instead of spending time earning votes and creating an environment where people would want to vote for him, he resorts to the typical Boogeyman politics.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      People like you still won’t accept that it’s your fucking fault that Trump won in 2016 in the first place, and as a direct result, completely fucked the SCOTUS over for a generation, setting us back decades.

      And you’re going to do it again. Because the Dems don’t tuck you in at night and tell you that they love you.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 month ago

        Hillary and Co 100% gave us trump. Democrats ignoring leftists when we warned you Hillary cannot win. There’s a better chance of you and other democrats voting for a Republican than any socialist or communist voting for either right wing POS.

        • notabot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          So you’re willingly admitting that you deliberately increased the chance of Trump winning by not voting tactically? I know it’s a rotten system, but you have to work with what’s in front of you. The approach you espouse makes it look like you’re actually a right wing saboteur rather than anything left wing.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The Leftist vote is flaky. Trying to appease you is a exercise of futility.

          If timed right, the Dems might be able to hold your vote for a single election. But done too early, you’ll find some new cause to be polarized by, done too late and you’ll have already made your decision and nothing will change it.

          And by “you’ll find some new cause to be polarized by”, I mean conservatives will spoon feed you a new thing to be polarized by. It’s so damn predictable and you take the bait every time.

          But sure, keep playing stupid games with the general election. You’ll be paying with the rest of us when your stupid games hand the reigns over to the fascists. Or we’ll spend the next term trying to make things marginally better while you whine that it’s not good enough the entire time.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I’m a liberal, and I sure as shit know the only ethical choice is to vote against Trump. People who demand perfection as the alternative to a fascist takeover aren’t just virtue signaling but also maliciously stupid.

    • Jordan117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s not a “Boogeyman” or a “scare tactic” if it actually happened. Trump did appoint three justices, those justices were significantly more right-wing than the ones they replaced, and as a result they actually did overturn Roe v. Wade and a side swath of other rights and regulations. Maybe keep that very recent history in mind when you hear the same people who warned about it then warning about him trying to end democracy in America now.

      • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        As a single father to two girls (ages 8 and 10) Republicans can fuck ALL of the way off. When they didn’t call out Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy with Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland vs Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, you lost me for the rest of my life.

        The part that really gets my goat on abortion is it only affects those without the means to travel. The rich and well connected (so basically every politician) can just fly to a country that treats its citizens with empathy when their daughter gets pregnant from a rape for an abortion, but they’ll look down from their ivory towers and tell MY daughter she somehow asked for it, and should therefore live with the consequences.

        @anticolonialist@lemmy.world The choices this next election seem to be Biden or Trump. I can’t change who is running, I can only choose who I would pick to win. Who do you plan on voting for?