134
Easiest answer.
Pack the court. It's perfectly legal. No laws or precedent against it. Just a lack of political will and spine.
Kamala could do it. I'm not saying she would, but she's not biden, and he definitely wasn't gonna do it. We can hope.
* Only if dems keep the senate, though. This is why down ballot races matter a lot
Biden is such a wuss when it comes to stuff like precedents
Joe should do it after the votes are counted in November, irrespective of who wins. If its a Trump win, a packed court gives some stability and a check on Trump. If its a Harris win, then there's no fallout for Harris making the call, and she has 4 years of a stable and sane Supreme Court.
Congress would have to pass a bill to pack the court, which the President would sign. The new Congress is seated early, though. If Democrats got their majorities they can send Joe a bill right away in the 2 weeks overlap.
This is a good point
That only solves the problem future decisions. Previous decisions would have to go back through the whole court system to hope to get reversed.
The current court has shown pretty clear distain for stare decisis and allowing things to skip the other courts when politically expedient. Plenty of precedent now established to undo the damage.
I think the author dismisses packing the court way too easily.
Packing the Court would almost certainly destroy the legitimacy of the federal judiciary in the eyes of many Republicans and would lead to massive resistance from red states.
Well, guess what? McConnell's game of "Keep Away" with Merrick Garland's nomination, combined with these rulings, has already destroyed the legitimacy of the Federal judiciary in the eyes of many. We're already there. Pack the court, then double-dare Republicans to gain control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress again if they want to double-pack it.
I fucking HATE how Republicans get to pull the slimyest, shittiest stuff ever, and then when Democrats are in power it's instantly "but think of the decorum!!!" This author can eat a bag of dicks.
Do you mean gutting the voting rights act?
Legalizing bribery?
Eliminating federal regulatory power?
Citizens united?
Couldn't Congress also pass a law restricting the scope of SCOTUS's authority? Seems like that might be the easiest path forward.
SCOTUS themselves might declare new laws or even new constitutional amendments invalid because "that was not envisioned by the founding fathers" or some bull like that
SCOTUS doesn't have a mechanism to enforce their decisions. They rely on everyone else accepting their authority and going along with it.
The constitution does give Congress the authority to set the jurisdiction of the courts. They could say that another court like the DC Circuit Court of Appeals would be the court of final appeal for any laws involving SCOTUS.
They don't have the authority to rule on the validity of a constitutional amendment, though that's moot because they do have the authority to rule on the interpretation of it
Constitutional amendments, and forcing lower courts' hands to make compelling but contradicting rulings. I guarantee once Harris is in office, they'll roll back all the God King President bullshit. I don't forsee getting an Amendment from a majority of states for that fix though.
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/scotus/366855/supreme-court-trump-immunity-betrayal-worst-decisions-anticanon
Side question: what is going on in the thumbnail?
It looks like Justice Roberts is giving Drumpf the most emotional of hand jobs while maintaining eye contact.
Trump just grabbed him by the pussy.
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
134 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1785 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS