this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
311 points (98.4% liked)

News

23296 readers
3363 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?

You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

imagine the immense opportunity. I don't know how they wouldn't all think about the power being given to them. the pool of candidates. the legacy. but Biden won't even nominate 2 more because he doesn't actually care.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In other words, you can't give a reason for Sinema and Manchin to support Biden if he did this or name two Republicans.

Because as far as I can tell, the 'immense opportunity' would also be there to say no to every single judge and not allow Biden to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Which they would totally do since even plenty of Democrats would be against it.

Why you think this is a politically winning issue I don't know. If it were, it would have been done already by other presidents. Do you think Clinton would have had a court with Thomas, Scalia and all the other Republican appointees? Do you think Clinton would have dealt with Rehnquist as chief justice if he didn't have to?

Even FDR had the Supreme Court working against him. Why didn't he expand the court so all of his New Deal programs would pass? Do you think maybe it's because it is not something the Senate would ever agree to or do you think FDR was just less popular than Biden?

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When did he try to expand the court? Details please.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Okay. Fair enough. He tried.

And he failed.

So what would the point of Biden trying be exactly? Because it sounds purely performative and the Senate already wastes way too much time on performative bullshit.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

he could introduce a constitutional amendment. he could pack the court. he could do something.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of congress and 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. That is literally impossible for Biden to achieve.

We already talked about how he would fail at packing the courts.

I think you don't really have a good understanding of how the U.S. government works.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

he didn't even fail at it. he didn't fucking try.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

You're right. He didn't try to do something purely performative that was almost certain to fail in a big waste of time and taxpayer money.

Because that would have been pretty fucking stupid.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was just spit balling. he could literally do anything to fix the situations we are facing instead of not.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He could literally do nothing about the Dobbs decision. It was entirely out of his hands. The executive branch does not control the judicial branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

he could have introduced a constitutional amendment. he could have packed the court. he did nothing.