- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Once they legalized coups, they lost all legitimacy in my opinion.
The SCOTUS situation is scarier than the POTUS situation which was already frightening enough.
*Coups are only legal if initiated by the President.
Yes, but only Republicans, Amiright?
Presidents can have a little coup, as a treat
Hmmm, I wonder if the left or any democracy loving peoples can create a temporary armed anti-coup force, just in case?
If we can organize to that level, why not take it one step farther? We could have actual democracy. It’d be a lot more stable, and more people would be willing to fight (and die) for it than preserving a broken status quo that pretty much everyone hates.
Don’t forget they legalized bribery long before making coups legal. That’s when they were testing the waters. Now they know they can be blatent with their rulings and noone will hold them accountable.
Frankly, the writing has been on the wall since they overturned the election in 2000; it’s just gotten a lot more blatant.
The silver lining here is they have no power of enforcement themselves, and their decisions can be reversed if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine to do so.
Democrats just need to get Biden out of the race so Trump can be kept out of office. And the house majority is very slim, so that can potentially be flipped too if the base can actually be energized instead of suppressed the way they have been. Democrats win when there is high turn out, so the name of the game needs to be showing people that Democrats are capable of listening.
…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.
A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.
But yes, packing the court alone doesn’t guaruntee the court can’t be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:
-
expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that’s just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then
-
Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.
There’s no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we’ve had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there’s no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.
None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.
And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…
There isn’t the political power to do it.
That’s the entire problem, full stop. This wouldn’t even have gotten to SCOTUS if Congress would have held POTUS accountable via impeachment. The reason Congress didn’t is partially due to political pressure from voters but mostly because the HoR is far too small to adequately represent 300,000,000 people.
Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.
Precedent is literally just a tradition that’s agreed upon, there’s nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.
So in that sense it’s a double-edged sword, it’s just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it’s always been this way.
-
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
The court literally just gave Biden the power.
No, they get to decide what an official act is. So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act. They get to decide what official acts are. So everyone Rubepublican has free reign and every democrat is boxed in.
So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act.
Yep, that’s what I said: the court literally just gave Biden the power to do that.
But, he could do anything else and they’d rule it as unofficial as long as they breathe
…as long as they breathe
True, but they wouldn’t be anymore, in this hypothetical scenario. I’m not sure why we’re belaboring that point.
they have no power of enforcement themselves
…which is why they’re working in tandem with the corrupt GOP, which does have the power. There isn’t a separation of powers in practice, just Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, what I’m saying is if you can keep the GOP out of power you hobble the supreme court. Like I said, it’s a source of hope and a goal to aim your political effort towards, not a permanent solution.
People downvoting this seem confused. I made the assumption people were able to understand I was talking longer term fight.
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.
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.
My city’s senator
You mean representative?
Welcome to America, fellow voter
Ah yeah that was a slip
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.
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.
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
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.
All fair points.
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.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
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.
As correct as Bernie Sanders has been his entire life, he’s also right here.
Granting one branch of government absolute and unfettered authority is the end of stable government.
SCOTUS has nearly unfettered authority as long as Congress remains dysfunctional in keeping them in check. They’re just passing the power along.
It’s not too late to pack that fucker. Sinema and Manchin could sit it out while Harris breaks the ties. Judicial nominations do not have the filibuster. If you’re looking for a campaign season pick me up, this kind of direct response to SCOTUS going off the rails is something that could do it.
Fucking fight Dems, and you’ll get backed up. We’re tired of watching you do nothing while the GOP pisses on everything. This would be a great way to demonstrate that a vote for Biden is for more than a neoliberal order controlling a sleepy old man.
The Dems could also get rid of the filibuster right now. Getting rid of it completely only requires a majority and Republicans already proved they will drop it the moment it isn’t useful to them to obstruct Dems like they did with judicial nominations.
Sinema and Manchin could sit it out
Big problem. They are Republicans in Democrat clothes. They will, as they always do, find a reason to vote against
Yes it is. That opportunity passed in 2022 when the Dems lost control of the House.
Fun fact, the Constitution gives authority to make new SCOTUS judges to the Senate and the President. Congress as a whole only has the power to organize courts below SCOTUS. The entire idea that the house can set the size of the court is unsupported.
I thought that eliminating the filibuster took a 3/5th vote in the senate. That’s 60 votes. We are nowhere close, though I support holding it to a vote to put it on the record, to highlight the hypocrisy later.
The filibuster is already gone in regards to judicial appointments, The Republicans killed it and the Democrats didn’t bring it back. But also, yeah the chamber rules are a simple majority vote. It’s Manchin and Sinema keeping that from happening, but also without the house of representatives it’s kind of useless to get rid of it right now.
Fucking let’s go. Do it.
Bidens guys already came out saying they don’t want to reform the Supreme Court. It’s not on the ballot this cycle.
Yeah I just saw that. Ridiculous.
And in 2 years he’ll probably “regret” not doing anything.2 years he might come to regret that decision in January when Trump usess his new powers to lock his ass up.
If fucking Biden lose in November he better use that new gift to stop Trump. Dumbass really wants to use this to fundraiser on, Biden so out of fucking touch he got no clue that we are just this vote away from a Christofascist state.
He knows, but the thing is that the Democrats are about as afraid of fascism as you are gasoline in your car. They use the threat of fascism to help scare people to the polls and to donate money, which is partly why they never seem to be in a big hurry to squash it. Problem being, of course, that people eventually get fear fatigue and stop paying attention. Kinda like how in the wake of 9/11, the government would announce terror threat levels, and they were always orange or red, indicating super double plus serious danger, and eventually people stopped caring because life must go on. Well, people get fatigued of it and then the fascists win again, which provides another big, though temporary, shot of support to the democrats. Meanwhile, the democrats don’t have to make any real, serious campaign or policy commitments besides “don’t be fascist”. Everything else they do (and don’t get me wrong, they do some good stuff sometimes) is just running up the score. So, for the centrist democrats that run the DNC and Biden campaign, this feels like a pretty good Wednesday for fundraising, even though we all see it as the literal end of the Republic. They’ve been walking on the ice so long, they’re convinced that while it is thin, they couldn’t possibly fall through.
Plenty of the sitting Dems in Congress are millionaires who think they will do well under fascism anyway.
The Dems LARP as an anti-GOP force while secretly being OK with the GOP policies. It’s all theater for the plebs, to convince us the lesser evil is keeping a larger evil at bay. All lies.
That’s why the Dems are so goddamn anemic. The Dems love the status quo too, they just want little tweaks here and there, nothing disruptive.
Gavin Newsom (D) is why California does not have single payer healthcare today.
I ALMOST want to vote Trump just to see SOMEONE (like Biden) FINALLY receive Consequences for their Actions! ALMOST.
You want to make Trump the first king of the United States to punish Biden for… what, exactly? Failing to stop Trump?
What the fuck kind of logic is that?
Id follow that logic right up until the part where rich people get consequences. No one is more prepared for either outcome of the election then they are. Democrat fundraising was all time high under Trump, Biden may see his personal fundraising go up and his stocks grow if he loses. No one is less invested in the real consequences of their own actions then politicians.
Shut your bigmachole.
In 2 years he’ll be in a Federal prison (if not executed). Trump has basically promised it.
Refusing to stop Trump is literally suicidal on Biden’s part.
Not just suicide at this point. We’re looking at massacres. If Trump takes power by any means, political prisoners are guaranteed. It’s the only way they stay powerful. And political prisoners have a very short lifespan.
Once political prisoners are taken, it’s all downhill from there.
2 years he might be dead.
That’s why I didn’t say 4 years lol
Link pls? I missed it.
Thanks for the link. Here’s the least bad news from the article:
Even more dispiriting for Americans who want to see real reform? The most optimistic view any of the campaign surrogates could offer Monday was a promise that Biden would at least “have conversations” about court reform that would be non-starters under Trump.
Crockett is part of a group of Democratic lawmakers advancing three separate pieces of court reform legislation — bills that would expand the court, implement term limits, and impose a binding ethics code on justices, respectively. “If we get the House, these are bills that we are going to try to push forward with,” Crockett said Monday. “I can guarantee you that if Trump is elected, he will never sign these into law.”
She added: “If Joe Biden is elected, we can at least sit down, have conversations and talk about why it’s important to institute these court reforms.”
For now, the prospect of future conversations is the most that Biden campaign surrogates can offer American voters — which is more than than the campaign itself was offering.
Even more dispiriting for Americans who want to see real reform? The most optimistic view any of the campaign surrogates could offer Monday was a promise that Biden would at least “have conversations” about court reform that would be non-starters under Trump.
This is the same language they used in 2020 for all the progressive stuff. That he then did nothing substantive on.
And his die hard supporters on here wonder why people don’t want to vote for Biden just because it keeps Trump out of office. Biden isn’t fighting this fight. The democrats are asleep at the wheel, another 4 years of, “oh no, poor me, SCOTUS said we can’t do this, we just have to executive order the most conservative policy in 60 years.” Does not excite the people who are willing to go vote.
Yall gonna hate me, but it is on the presidential ballot, Jill Stein has come out supporting term limits and expanding the court after this fiasco.
Is she viable with our current first-past-the-post system? No? Then she’s not a realistic choice. All she can do is pull votes from Democrats handing the election to Trump.
All she can do is pull votes from Democrats handing the election to Trump.
the ambiguity of this syntax is fun! the democrats are handing the election to trump, and jill stein is trying to pull votes from them!
Is she viable with our current first-past-the-post system
viability is a myth invented by the media. hilary was viable. john kerry.
Did you read beyond that word? I’m not applying a political yardstick to her, I’m using the term in the sense that she literally cannot win.
Its a weird self fulfilling prophecy thing. Its entirely up to vote whether or not she wins, but people wont vote for her only because they dont think she’ll win.
I won’t vote for her because she’s a traitor pushing Russian interests, just like trump.
anything besides her consistent calls for less US military interventions? The green party is a lot less military focused than republicans and democrats
That traitor pushes Putin’s propaganda on Ukraine. That’s enough for me to know she is pro-oligarchy and anti-democracy.
deleted by creator
I feel like you still aren’t getting it. It’s not these reasons, it’s because we have a 2-Party system. I don’t like it, and we desperately need election reform, but until then, no one can win without being the Republican/Democrat Nominee. Bernie Sanders, Jon Stewart, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, not one of them could win as a 3rd-Party candidate…
I don’t like it, and we desperately need election reform
these words are hollow in the face of actions actively perpetuating the 2 party system. Im looking enviously at Peter Magyar in Hungary forming a party in March and now being elected to EU parliament because people wanted an alternative after a corruption scandal. This shit aint enough for you?
Some real “Curious… You criticize society, yet you participate in it” vibes here. “Perpetuate” the 2-party system!? What are you actually talking about? People should not vote, or throw it away until they magically give us ranked choice voting?? Absolute nonsense.
If you want to walk the walk, start a grass roots effort to reform the system, and I’ll support you. Until then, I’ll assume you’re just trying to get people to not use our only real power currently: voting.
You mean Russian Asset Jill Stein?
Is this that one photo again? Why yes it is. Surely you wouldn’t vote for a candidate with photos of being friendly with Putin
How about you read the actual rather than just looking at the thumbnail.
Ive seen it before, the article is some nonsense about…her trying to win an election against Biden? Biden is shit and I agree with her criticisms. Then it’s trying to say she never criticizes Trump when most of her criticisms of Biden are pejoratively comparing him to Trump. Trump being shit is a given.
It’s more than the photo and you know it.
But it is the same old photo, i knew what it was gonna be before i even clicked it
Righto, I suppose you also support the annexation of Ukraine like your hero does? That makes you the enemy of democracy.
Sure, but only if we had ranked choice voting.
no, she’s going to be on the ballot whether we have ranked choice or no.
She supports that too
She’s got my vote!
A vote for that traitor is a vote for both Russian assets.
“Let’s go” what? What will you go do?
I hear that phrase from the most worthless folks. Then Deadpool…“Let’s go” means Jack shit… so those who say it are saying what?
You can go. No one cares.
Oh man, someone woke up the idiot today. Are Wednesdays the day you’re allowed to talk to other people?
Let’s go? By all means let Bernie off the chain…
Go back to bed moron.
We could’ve had Bernie in the Whitehouse. He really could have been president. This country is doomed.
I remember arguing with my boomer parents about Sanders when he was winning primaries. I shit you not, my mother looked me dead in the eye and said: “Bernie is too old. We need Biden.”
I’ll definitely never forget that.
That one year made a huge difference, I guess.
I made that argument too. Something tells me there was something else about Bernie she didn’t like. But she was a “lifelong democrat” and “didn’t have a problem” with socialism, so… anyone’s guess! /s
We could’ve had Gore back in 2000. Oh wait…
Yeah, election stealing is at this point just a past time hobby for Republicans
It’s tough for the Democrats, to be just progressive enough as to not piss off too many red/purple states.
The SC sure as fuck wouldn’t have given him the power to legally assassinate fascists trying to overthrow democracy on the expectation he wouldn’t use it.
I’ve said this so many times
Bernie/AOC ticket 2024 plz
Or 2028 if we still have elections then
AOC for president, Bernie for vice (cause ageist societal concerns).
Or, Bernie as President, AOC as Prime Minister (using SCOTUS’ ruling to rewrite all laws and current established government).
Fucking Brilliant. Biden could just pull out the ol’ uno reverse right now.
Why would we have a PM? We already have the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. And the PM wouldn’t be able to exercise any executive powers unless you burned the constitution, because separation of powers.
There’s not really a good reason to adopt a parliamentary system like the UK’s for example if we were to completely reform the government imo. Or to have a PM separate from the president at all.
I love Bernie, but he’s 82 and has heart disease.
My god can we get a younger social Democrat please? Fuckin A I’m tired of people born before WW2 ended making all the policy decisions. I was going to say before the moon landing but they were all adults when that happened. They’re not even Boomers. They’re fucking older than boomers.
Bernie will be 87 in 2028.
Is there anyone younger with stances like Bernie?
Katie Porter & AOC would be amazing
If those two ran on a presidential ticket together, the Republican Party would dial up the “it’ll be the end times if they win and only our lord and savior Trump can stop it” to 1000.
Other than the actual real world insanity, I’d love to see them pop some blood vessels.
Talib, AOC? Cori Bush?
Most of America. But they aren’t becoming politicians. Mostly because politicians are really bad people for the most part. You get maybe 5 percent that don’t have ulterior motives.
5 percent is awfully generous. Maybe it’s that high for people that try to run, but the vast majority of people that win are sucking someone’s teet.
Who cares how old they are as long as they have the right positions on the issues and a sound mind? I love having people with some wisdom in there.
The problem is apparently having someone in office that will live long enough to actually reap what they sow. I didn’t used to think this would ever be a thing we’d have to be worried about, but, here we are. Environmental issues in particular hit this note I think.
Idk. I feel like Jay Pritzker/Warren 2028 would be fucking sweet
Nah, I’d take a turd sandwich over Pritzker any day.
No, you don’t solve the problem with another OLD white guy.
Damn bruh if only we had the power to summarily imprison those greasy fucks.
Biden does if he deems it an official act!
We called for this on day 1 of Biden’s first term…
He chose to put a bipartisan committee in charge of seeing if we should just let the corrupt Republican SC stay in power, and the committee waited two years till dems didnt have the numbers to fix anything, before recommending Dems don’t fix anything.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773
The aristocrats! /s
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
You can’t reform the court without a Constitutional Amendment since the operation and formation of the court is defined by the Constitution.
So, 2/3rds vote in the House, 2/3rds vote in the Senate, ratification by the States.
and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
That’s the rub.
We have things we can do, but party leadership don’t want to do it.
So when they say they can’t do anything, things like “get rid of the filibuster” come up. And they party has to acknowledge that would work…
They’re just not willing to do it.
Which when that comes back to voters, makes them less likely to vote. Because they feel like even when we have the numbers, it won’t change anything because party leadership wants to have the fight against fascism with at least one hand tied behind their back out of an outdated sense of honor.
We’re fucking fighting fascism bro.
What matters is winning.
If the Republicans take the Senate and White House, they will ditch the filibuster the first day the next Senate leader takes the gavel. Count on it.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 should be amended today, and 4+ justices should be confirmed before January. It’s a hell of a lot easier to confirm them now than it will be for Republicans to remove them from the bench next year. Not easy, mind you, but easier.
There are a few ways to reform the court without a Constitutional amendment:
- Increase the number of justices on the bench. The Constitution sets no limit or requirement for the number of seats, only the process by which they are filled. Nomination comes from POTUS and will need to be “consented” to by the Senate. The number of seats has changed in the past and will change again, just a matter of when and who stuffs the court.
- Establish bounds of “good Behavior” and define means of removal. The Constitution isn’t very cut and dry on the removal process of Justices (with impeachment being reserved for the “President, Vice President, and all civil Officers” the latter group being left undefined), but it does say that the Judges shall “hold their Offices during good Behavior.” Historically impeachment has been the process chosen for removal of Judges, but discussion about Congress’ role in defining “good Behavior” and the means for removal have persisted even into the late 1900s. It is entirely feasible that Congress imposes a code of conduct and simple majority review to remove those found in violation. That code of conduct doesn’t just have to be about taking free vacations, either. It could assess the quality of judgement and find that if you clearly ignored the facts of a case to push your own narrative (such as with KENNEDY v. BREMERTON) you’re in violation.
- Establish a term limit for the Supreme Court and rotate Justices into lower courts when that limit is reached. This one is probably the longest shot as it would depend on whether or not a Justice’s “Office” is literally the Supreme Court or the federal Judicial system as a whole and that interpretation would almost definitely be seized by SCOTUS if Congress even attempted this. But, so long as Congress and the Executive are in agreement on the specific interpretation, SCOTUS’ opinion here can be suppressed. Worth noting, however, that that is very rarely how the US operates.
- Remove Judicial Review. The idea that the courts have the sole authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress is not found in the Constitution itself, but was manifested by the same court that benefits from granting itself that power. It’s the executive branch’s job to enforce the law and both Congress and POTUS are elected to represent the people. SCOTUS’s job is to resolve conflicts involving the States and those who work with them, they are not accountable to anyone and are not elected. A new law ceding the ability to review constitutionality to some other branch would reset SCOTUS’ job to the original intent (a move which I’m sure the 6 textual literalists will gladly embrace).
- Tailor bills to undo recent catastrophic rulings. Congress makes laws. They can make laws that close “loopholes” or perceived ambiguities that SCOTUS uses to derive their rulings. Congress can (and should) undo presidential immunity, Dobbs, judicial review of government agencies’ actions, etc.
These will all take work to achieve, and are very unlikely to even be tried, but because they all address shortcomings manifest outside of the Constitution they can all be implemented without amendment to the Constitution.
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
*and even the number of democrats minus 50 don’t want to. So even one (plus Harris helping) in the first two years of the term or even two (if Harris helps again) in the second two years of the past term. It’s not like all democrats are unified about the filibuster, most voted to bypass it. You need either more than 60 dems total, or more than 50 dems that support bypassing the filibuster.
Or you know, even a single republican that doesn’t want to be a facist helping to transition the country to authoritarian rule. But that seems less likely unfortunately.
And 2/3 of both houses is easy mode compared to State ratification. We couldn’t get states to agree that the sky is blue at this point in the collapse of the country.
I vote for Sanders as King of America. I guess I gotta write that in?
Please don’t though
Add 6, and impeach 2.
Got it, the split is now 12:1
“If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office”
Why do that when they can exploit a shitty system instead? They now are there for the rest of their lives and can interpret the law to mean whatever they want and there is no legal recourse to do anything about it as long as their corrupt party has enough power to prevent impeachment.
Plus they can receive bribes just like politicians too, so the “low” salary (far higher than most people will ever make, but tbf a significant amount of training required to reach that point) isn’t an issue.
I wish the dnc didn’t fuck him over
Best I can do is stern warnings
Pawnstars.jpg
Ok, but to do this, the Dems would need a blowout election in their favor. They would need to retake the House and have a commanding lead in the Senate so that they can get this passed even with a couple turncoats.
