187

Biden's and Trump's records show sharp differences in what types of judges they would choose. And the winner of the fall election could appoint more Supreme Court justices.

The Democratic-led Senate is poised to confirm President Joe Biden’s 200th federal judge Wednesday, a milestone that highlights a sharp contrast with his election rival, Republican former President Donald Trump, as they seek to shape the courts over the next four years.

It’s unclear whether Biden will catch up to the 234 judges Trump secured in his presidential term. But the winners of the presidency and the Senate majority will have the power to shape the courts for the next few years, and the two men have dramatically different criteria in choosing nominees. 

Whoever occupies the White House in the next term could even pick one or more new Supreme Court justices, which could shift or entrench the current 6-3 conservative majority. By the time the winner is sworn in, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas will be 76 and conservative Justice Samuel Alito will be 74. The next oldest member of the court is liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who will be 70. Chief Justice John Roberts will turn 70 a week after the swearing-in.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 31 points 3 weeks ago
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Hold your nose if you have to. I know I did when I voted for Hillary.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

I literally took a picture of myself holding my nose in the 2016 election. Voted for Hilary. Didn't want to, but it was by far the better option.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

And don’t worry, these Dems will cause the crisis of capitalism too. Just without killing the communists like the republicans may attempt to

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago

Don't be excited about just a number of judges.

Biden is significantly more conservative than the Dem voter base, and has an unhealthy obsession with "compromising" with republicans and trying to appointment people who think both parties have valid points.

That's not how you fight fascism and religious extremists.

I can assure you his picks and trump's picks are going to agree on stuff, especially when it's about what the wealthy and/or corporations can do to regular citizens

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 20 points 3 weeks ago

I mean im excited its not 200 more trump picks rather than 200 picks that might agree with trump picks based on a belief in how the picks were made.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

What does it matter who trump picked when Schumer helped fast track most of them.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

I think selection matters a lot. I totally don't mind fast tracking the next ruth bader ginsburg.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, I think the only take away is that they're not Trump sycophants like Aileen Cannon.

It's not quite the needed win, but it's still something :/

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

It's enough to be better than a trump pick, but nothing we should celebrate.

We're just losing less than we would have.

Which isn't a viable long term strategy. But it's been our only choice in over a decade in elections.

Eventually, we need to start fucking winning at least half the time

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

Right? It's fuckin wild to me that this appears to be the entire dem strategy in the face of immanent fascism.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

It's really not that wild. You win elections by appealing to voters. You could take a gamble that you can inspire the younger generations enough to vote in larger numbers, or you could try to appeal to existing older swing voters. You can't always do both simultaneously though.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

You win elections by appealing to voters

That's WHY it's wild! The Dem leadership is alienating tens if not over a HUNDRED million prospective voters in order to keep courting the ever-shrinking "undecided who's almost a Republican" group that might be as little as a few million now as they keep dying or joining the fascist party.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I guess I've just seen it enough times that it is no longer wild to me. It just looks like typical cold calculus and risk-averse behavior.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I get what you're saying, but I disagree: every time they run another election as if it's still 1992, that becomes a crazier thing to do than it was the last time.

ESPECIALLY now that the GOP has become a literal fascist party, meaning that the Dem leadership are courting very far right people while insisting that they perfectly represent EVERYONE whose ideals and policy preferences are to the left of fascism, which is roughly 250m people, children and nonvoting adults included.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's a coalition, and like all coalitions, it has a wide variety of sorts in it. We're not together because we like each other, we don't like each other. Nobody says we do, that I have heard anyway.

The two party system allows them to shift further right though. The further right the GOP goes, the further right the dems can go to try to vacuum up disaffected voters. I'm pretty sure parts of the GOP coalition know that too, and it factors into their strategy of getting some of their way even when they lose.

It's about casting the widest possible net though, not lasering in on any particular subset and trying to make them happy. I don't think anyone is perfectly happy currently, damn near absolutely no one.

Our solution is to try to make our positions more popular with the public, though. Not to try to pressure the party apparatus to appease a certain inner faction and pretend it won't cost them with others. It will cost them elsewhere, the best we could do there is try to argue it might be worth it. But would it? Can that be guaranteed? Because if there's one thing I've gauged about Biden, it's that he doesn't like taking big risks.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's a coalition, and like all coalitions, it has a wide variety of sorts in it.

Yes, I know. What I'm pointing out is that more than half of those 250m+ people are in effect ideologically disenfranchised by the Dem leadership actively preventing candidates that better represent their views from being nominated, often from even running for office.

The two party system allows them to shift further right though. The further right the GOP goes, the further right the dems can go to try to vacuum up disaffected voters. I'm pretty sure parts of the GOP coalition know that too, and it factors into their strategy of getting some of their way even when they lose.

I'm aware of that too. It's part of the ratchet effect:

ar It's about casting the widest possible net though, not lasering in on any particular subset and trying to make them happy.

Tell that to the Dem leadership. What I've been complaining about this whole time is that the Dem leadership snatches defeat from the jaws of easy victory by refusing to actively appeal or even LISTEN to anyone except that tiny group and the "vote blue no matter who" crowd who's almost literally incapable of not supporting the party no matter what.

Expanding the net leftward would make it possible for them to win most major elections, including every presidential election, in a landslide from now and until the GOP either change their politics back to something sane or manage to manipulate elections so much that voting has no effect.

I don't think anyone is perfectly happy currently

The owner donors and whomever else profit from the status quo probably are.

Our solution is to try to make our positions more popular with the public, though

Progressive and further left policies are already much more popular with voters than the center right to right wing ones of the Dem leadership.

Not to try to pressure the party apparatus to appease a certain inner faction

You've got it backwards: most of the actual Left has become an outside faction due to the party apparatus' refusal to listen and demands for blind obedience causing resentment and alienation.

and pretend it won't cost them with others. It will cost them elsewhere

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that listening to the left like they used to before the Clintonites took over would gain them many times more voters than it would cost.

if there's one thing I've gauged about Biden, it's that he doesn't like taking big risks.

Except for stubbornly gluing his tongue to the boots of a genocidal apartheid regime even as the majority of the people of the world and indeed the country are condemning it. Doing so is an enormous risk, one that I fear has already cost him the election and by extension the country its democracy.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I think your feelings of resentment are clouding your judgement.

The essence of your argument seems to be that progressive policies will strengthen the hand of dems in a large number of elections. Can you back that up with data? Because when I look at electoral maps of the country I just don't see it. It would strengthen their hand in progressive regions, no question, but those aren't where the battle is being fought.

I would love it if you were right, but having lived in middle America often enough through my life, I just don't see it reflected in the attitudes of locals.

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

You've upset our lib population here on lemmy. 😂

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 24 points 3 weeks ago

I feel like you all like to invent people to pretend you've upset. I don't really consider myself a lib, but in classic left fashion, people to the left of me will call me one. The only time I start downvoting stuff about Biden is when its clearly false or its people saying they aren't going to vote (or worse, will vote for trump). Frankly I think most of those people are likely fake. You want to point out bad stuff about Biden, please do. You want to push him on issues, please do. You want to fight grassroots for better elected officials where you can get them in, please do. Just don't lie and don't decide to give up on the idea of governance all together (see accelerationism).

[-] eltrain123@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Agreed.

…and where you are unhappy with Biden’s policy, look to see what Trump’s policy would be. If it’s not better, for instance the US policy on Israel/Gaza, don’t use that as a reason to not vote. Protest and let your elected officials know how you feel, vote in every election all the way down to school board levels, and try to change who is in all of the supporting roles in an administration if you are unhappy with them, but don’t abstain. Apathy is better for regressive candidates than progressive candidates.

Government is a ‘big ship’; and, it takes a long time to turn the direction it’s moving. Republicans are far better at playing the long game; and, we are reaping what they’ve been sowing since the Southern Strategy started under the Nixon administration and was the driving force under the Reagan administration.

If you don’t like what our government has become, you are working against a 40-50 year track record that put us here.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In 2022, Biden picked Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former public defender, to be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court; she has since become a reliable member of the liberal bloc.

“I faced down vile attacks from the radical left to confirm three great Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

On the priority list for Democrats is Supreme Court ethics legislation, a cause fueled this week by reports that an upside-down American flag flew outside Alito’s home days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, when rioters brandished the symbol to try to overturn the 2020 election result and keep Trump in power.

It commissioned a national poll taken by the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, first shared with NBC News, which found overwhelming support for term limits for justices.

A White House spokesperson noted that Biden has endorsed Supreme Court ethics and transparency legislation but didn’t comment on whether he favors term limits for justices.

I’ve got enough sources of anxiety and sadness,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “It’s a frightening thought, because obviously a number of them could resign at any time to make way for the next wave of far-right MAGA judges — who are not really justices, just politicians in robes.”


The original article contains 1,188 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
187 points (100.0% liked)

politics

17915 readers
2245 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS