This would be amazing if he can do it. At least he’s promising good changes vs trump promising judgment day on day one…
Didn’t he literally say he would take vengeance on all his political opponents day one? Then the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity?
Yes. He said both what I wrote and wanting revenge, saying he will be a dictator for one day, day one. This video has both clips, if you want to skip to 8:17 for the revenge and judgment day after that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNzzOwiebvM
It is weird that they dicked around for 4 years on this, though.
Still, vote blue, your vassals beg you (Australian here).
4 years of daily Republican sabotage of the US government. Democrats are not perfect. They are also not the problem at hand.
Undoing the amount of damage they caused takes time. Biden inherited a spiraling economy, hundreds of thousands of people sick and dying, and a coup attempt that nearly got a bunch of people killed.
Not to mention all the idiotic shit the prior president had done while in office, such as austerity cuts that fucked social programs, legal systems, and low and middle income Americans.
It will take 12-16 years of unified democrat rule to fix corruption, regulatory capture, anti-trust for monopolies, universal healthcare, infrastructure investments that don’t get slashed by idiotic presidents, etc.
Four years of chemotherapy isn’t nearly enough when we have policy tumors and R&D funding cut abscesses from fucking idiots like Regan, Bush, and Trump.
Hmmm, genuinely improving the lives of Americans vs fire and brimstone and a dictator. Tough choice for Americans in November /s
Get everyone you can to vote in November, seriously. Trump’s faction is barely scraping by. We can do this.
Just pack the goddamn court. There’s ONE conservative justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who came to power having received more votes than his opponent, and that’s Clarence Thomas, the man whose loyalties can be bought with a luxury vacation and whose wife aided and abetted insurrectionist traitors.
The ENTIRE conservative wing of the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Every single one of them. And you know what? Thanks to the GOP, it only takes 50 votes to approve a supreme court justice. It used to be sixty, but they changed the rules so they could more conveniently destroy America.
Easier than a constitutional amendment, but it still requires 60 votes in the senate to expand the number of justices in the court.
There needs to be a true check to the complete corruption of the supreme court.
We need,
The Ultra Supreme Court XXL
I’m wishing he had packed the courts when he had the chance.
Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.
The fact that the US has to ‘pack the courts’ to get anything through shows how broken the system is.
Not that any other country is better but still, you’d think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate
Plenty of countries are far ‘better’.
Oh probably, but I didn’t want a bunch of Yankees jumping down my throat, and I don’t know enough about other countries’ legal systems to comment
You’re 100% correct.
Fuck procedure. Dems need to act instead of just talking about shit. I’m legit terrified for this next election.
And you think that wasn’t the wanted outcome.
He never had the chance, Manchin was pretty outspoken about his opposition to it.
True, I was just dreaming for a minute.
no because that would actually have worked
The skeptic in me says democrats love not being in power cause they don’t have to be responsible for what actually happens.
And they get more donations
add ranked choice
Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I’m not going to throw away my vote or my delegate’s vote.
Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we’re at it?
Yes please. As someone who isn’t in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
Also, prisoners should get a vote.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.
A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don’t exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that’s pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.
Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don’t get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don’t realize they are part of the U.S.
Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.
So PR is a colony
Isn’t ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You’d have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?
Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.
Doesn’t the constitution explicitly grant states the right to decide how they hold their elections?
The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn’t even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state’s presidential electors are appointed. That didn’t stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren’t allowed to decide how to run their state’s elections.
Now, you’d think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don’t pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who’s going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don’t know yet!
deleted by creator
Make every US citizen a Supreme Court justice when they turn 18. There’s nothing in the constitution that says you can’t do that. Put cases up to popular vote every year or two. Also, whatever law passed to do this would count as senate approval because who’s going to strike it down… the Supreme Court?
There’s nothing in the constitution that says dogs can’t play basketball.
This meme is great but it drives me crazy. There are certainly multiple eligibility requirements to play on a school basketball team, including age and being a registered student, which would prevent a dog from qualifying.
Don’t stomp on Air Bud’s dreams.
There is that basketball court that’s on top of the Supreme Court…does that mean another Air Bud sequel but this time he’s a justice?
This is hilarious. I’m sure someone with more bandwidth than me can point out a dozen reasons why this is bad, but fuck if it isn’t funny and appealing.
Yeah but what we have now is clearly bad too.
We’ve already got a partisan court and the decisions affect us all anyway, so…
Hopefully he succeeds. The court is fucked
I can’t imagine how he possibly will. R is happy just the way things are.
People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a better chance of that happening than Biden winning.
Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.
PACK THE FUCKING COURT! You’re in that office to serve the people not the fucking system. Doesn’t matter anyway republicans are going to destroy everything they can get their hands on.
Yeah, why would you try to actually solve a problem instead of just applying a band-aid that the next administration can rip of again (by incresing the size of the court again)?
Every solution that works within the system would be a band-aid. The entire system is band-aids. The government set up by a group of wealthy white men almost 250 years ago for a population 130 times smaller than it is now simply does not and cannot work in today’s world.
If he doesn’t do it, Trump will if he wins.
He can’t do it with a Republican House and a Senate that requires 60 votes to do anything.
That’s the real problem, but too many people here and elsewhere are unaware of the limitations on how the legislative process works. Anything like this is pretty much DOA and purely ceremonial. I’m happy for all of the positive things Biden has been able to get done in spite of such gridlock, but amendment level change in this country is just not at all possible right now.
Nope. And while the call for a Constitutional Convention to re-do the whole thing currently has more support (28 states out of 34 required), it’s generally coming from red states and would require 3/4 of the states to approve it. So that’s a non-starter too.
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/#
Well, I mean. if their rhetoric has hit a tipping point, maybe there wont be 60 for long.
And even if he could, there’s literally zero reason to think he would. This is more empty campaign rhetoric like back in 2020.
That’s the thing that kills me, he makes these promises that he KNOWS he can’t get done, which leads to the whole “Well, Democrats never do anything!” argument.
What he NEEDS to say is “Here’s what I want to do, but I need your help throwing out the bastards in the House and Senate blocking it! Here are their names, let’s get them gone!”
Yep, this is the carrot that will never be given to us, standard DNC playbook.
No talkie talkie. Fucking do.
Explain how.
The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.
Why doesn’t he just bypass congress and call it an official act?
He’s a “soft” Democrat that cares about “optics” 🙄
But practically speaking there’s no way for him to enforce it without threatening violence and there’s no chance that would go over well even with other democrats
inb4 the Supreme Court rules that new laws made about the Supreme Court are illegal. Why even stop there. They can simply rule that ACKTCHUALLY the US is a monarchy and Clarence Thomas is in charge of it all.
I’m down to commit regicide
Become ungovernable instead, whatever that means to you. Refusing to have kids and then living as flat as possible so you can smoke weed is one example of social behavior that harms their agenda a lot more than committing suicide does.
I respect the decision. We all gotta go our particular ways
Where was suicide mentioned?
Imagine shit hitting the fan if Congress passed a law limiting a clearly corrupt court and then the court “ruled it unconstitutional”.
That isn’t going to fly.
It’s not even in the constitution that the supreme court can rule something unconstitutional, they just did it once early on and everyone went with it.
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.
Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC’s presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I’m mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.
This might be of interest: How the US supreme court shredded the constitution and what can be done to repair it
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema already said they weren’t going to support that, so what do you suggest the President do without a Senate majority?
It’s crazy how often I see people doing this; they’re ardently against Trump’s efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn’t do x y, or z when those aren’t things that fall under his purview.
What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it’s the neo-liberal I like?
Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.
But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.
So, in effect: “idk do SOMETHING”? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?
There’s an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.
he has absolute immunity to whatever courtesy of the supreme court.
Biden doesn’t. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.
It does not work that way
Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.
I think I see what you’re saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn’t have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.
Those two should’ve been kicked out of the party a long time ago. Both are up for reelection this year and are not running as a democrat.
What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn’t have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.
Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it’s not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R’s will respect the filibuster if it’s in their way at this point though.
You don’t have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won’t betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.
Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying “It’d be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we’re in power.” is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren’t naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.
Oh then it’s okay he didn’t even try anything until he realized he was so unpopular people are asking him to step down.
That’s not what I said bro.
People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn’t. Fixing SCOTUS isn’t going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.
On that last part, you’re not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an “official act”.
Yep, Biden is under the delusion that representatives vote on policies based on what their constituents want.
What would you have recommend he do?
Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.
Like he’s doing
Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!
deleted by creator
Not an American, but increasing SC members would seem like a good thing to do. The more people on it, the harder it is to stack.
The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law. The President can’t* appoint more without Congress passing a law adding more.
*Of course, that was before they ruled that Presidents are totally immune from any prosecution, so who the fuck knows now.
The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law.
This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.
I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.
There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it’s just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.
Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it’s not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.
Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.
There’s no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it’s critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.
it’s almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.
Stack the fucking court Joe. I don’t care if there are 500 Supreme Court Justices.
Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.
So we need record turnout for that. Vote.
Just saying, he could officially eliminate a few justices in the short term.
Kicks in the door, guns blazing … official presidential business 😎
Vote and volunteer to help others get to the booths if they can’t on their own. We know they want to do everything they can to make voting harder for the blue. Getting the blue to stay home is their only chance of winning. If everyone votes, there is no longer a republican party. (or those that are around won’t matter, they won’t be able to strip rights from the American people)
They had the house, the senate and the white house before the mid terms and they squandered it
Are you talking about the period in which Sinema and Manchin actively sabotaged the agenda of their own party?
Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.
He needs to push hard and fast.
Incrementalists don’t do that.
You mean conservatives, but I agree. Our less-fascist conservative party doesn’t like to even attempt too much progress; it would upset their owners.
You mean conservatives
Incrementalists believe in doing as little as possible and would do nothing if they thought they could get away with it. Conservatives believe in fascism and will implement it as quickly as we let them. Incrementalists believe in letting them.
