•

Biden Is Wrong. The Supreme Court Is Already “Politicized.”

https://jacobin.com/2023/07/supreme-court-right-wing-politics-joe-biden-court-packing-democracy

President Biden said he won’t expand the Supreme Court because doing so would “politicize” the court in an unhealthy way. But it’s a political institution by its nature — and a disturbingly undemocratic one.

40 comments

orcrist

•

This is classic Biden. It's classic center-right Democrat speak. The Republicans predictably do something bad decades after they started trying to accomplish it, and centrist Washington Democrats sit around doing nothing. I can't say they betrayed my expectations because this is exactly what they have been doing for the last 20 years.

Detry

•

KilgoreTheTrout11

•

Yeah this is basically the way the Democrats of operated my entire life and possibly longer.

They claim there needs to be a strong Republican party and that they want bipartisanship. They already are starting off as being More right wing than every single European conservative party or any conservative party in the OECD basically on issues like health care and social policy.

Same with the debt ceiling thing. There was a million ways around that besides caving to the Republicans on cutting food stamps.

yunggwailo

•

If FDR couldnt pack the courts what makes you think Biden can with far less support

KilgoreTheTrout11

•

I don't think he can, but he shouldn't give up the fight before it's even started. If you have the presidency the bully pulpit you could at least start to put the idea into the minds of the Americans and normalize. It certainly better than just bending over.

Mean there's not a very good chance for a single-payer healthcare system to be instituted anytime soon but that doesn't mean politician shouldn't openly advocate for it.

BraveSirZaphod

•

To be clear, there is zero fight to be had. The composition of the Court can only be modified by Congress. The GOP led House is not going to pass a bill allowing the Democrat President to add new judges to the Court.

Given that reality, there's simply nothing Biden could do even if he wanted to.

keeb420

•

this is the same president that used the bully pulpit to force a deal... on striking rail workers who were asking for reasonable days off.

CoWizard

•

Obama couldn't even get Merrick Garland on the bench... This country is ill

ProcurementCat

•

Permanently Deleted

Col3814444

•

What is the worst Republicans can do if the Dems did expand the court? Expand it further?

I can only imagine such a thing would lead to better and fairer results

TinyPizza

•

Maybe have the new justices vote on some sort of involuntary, non dis-chargeable, clear language, ethical code that everyone who joins signs? Maybe mandatory minimum sentences if they break it?

Frog-Brawler

•

I’d bet $1 on Trump winning the next election and then expanding the court. Just think about whatever the worst likely scenario is; that’s also the most probable. The Republicants have spent 30 years de-educating and numbing America.

hiyaaaaa23

•

I think we should have some serious discussions about how we want to deal with the Supreme Court. I’m not saying packing the court is the right option, but they’ve become far too right wing at this point, and they’re supposed to be politically neutral.

ThunderingJerboa

•

Even if Biden wanted to pack the court, the numbers just aren't there to support that action. Like we can't really have a discussion when there is "half" of this country who are just looking at this saying this is good and even if it is "politically" loaded its on their own team, so why care.

unfnknblvbl

•

how about - hear me out here - fixed terms for supreme court justices?

Waryspice

•

Wouldn't it just turn into every new president expanding the court until it benefits them? What's the limit? Honestly asking IDK.

missingno

•

I actually think expanding the Supreme Court should be a long-term project: one new seat per presidential term, until the court has a total of 15 seats in 2044 (15 being a number I pulled out of my ass, just seems like a good size to me). That's a slow enough rollout that it can't be accused of one party stuffing the court, and it's fair because it gives several future presidents a say. Is that sufficiently 'non-politicized'?

Not that this kind of compromise would be acceptable to the other side anyway, they'll call foul no matter what because they're winning right now and won't accept anything that could potentially challenge that.

PupBiru

•

not an american, so i have no real… uh… i was gonna say skin in the game but tbh the whole western world has skin in the game… regardless:

if that were to happen i’d say it’d get to a point where the number of justices deadlocks the court, and either makes it entirely symbolic or there’s a bipartisan agreement that something needs to be fixed and that’s how you get systemic change

KilgoreTheTrout11

•

We should probably just abolish the court as it has no functional value anyways.

The fact is, Republicans effectively stole to supreme Court seats based on legislative tactics. This is basically unprecedented.

TinyPizza

•

All these "vote blue no matter who" boat shoe lickers should make sure to put this on top of the stack of reasons they trot out at every opportunity. Roasting on all of us to fall in line all the time is bullshit when any rational person can look at this and legitimately say "why should I care?" Are they as bad as the christian nationalist fascists that are getting frothed up to start killing? Probably not but kinda. This is the shit that MLK was talking about when he was locked in the Birmingham jail. These god damn white moderates don't wanna ruffle any feathers or bring about actual change so they're going to sit on their hands. This is akin to locking the doors on a movie theater with an arsonist in it so that the police can come and bring the criminal to justice. You don't want to come off as some sort of vigilante so best to have the proper authorities come sort it out. At the same time, what kind of person would you be to let the arsonist get away?

If anyone tells you that someone always deserves your vote, then they better damn well preface it with a huge piece on why and how we need to be on these politicians cases from the jump to hold them accountable. How we need to show up and protest in front of their houses and at every event until they keep their promises. We need a PSA every time that while there might not be a viable alternative in voting, we need to band together and make these fuckers lives uncomfortable to the point that they give a shit now. No more pleas for votes unless they come with that message. These fuckers are just trying to kick the can down the road far enough so that they're dead by the time we have to fight these cross burners in the streets.

CoWizard

•

Biden was the better choice between two garbage candidates because no one voted in the primaries. This was literally his platform, and most who did vote wanted that.

krzschlss

•

So, the only reason you vote for this liar over the other liar is because you have no other options? So you vote for a liar? What kinda system is this?

PupBiru

•

total shit system; we all know that

what’s your solution?

i’ll wait, and in the meantime i’ll make political decisions based on the people who don’t want to kill me

Yewb

•

"There will be no significant change under my leadership", I think those were his words.

wagesj45

•

Sorry but we have to fall in line because that's exactly what the Republicans do every election. Part of the reason they were able to shift things so dramatically is because they fell in line and voted for Republicans they weren't in love with. Each one wasn't perfect, but normalized their shitty behavior and expectations grew and grew.

You can stand on principal if you want. There have been principals that I have stood on to my own detriment. But it will be to our detriment.

TinyPizza

•

So according to you, things are bad in this country because republicans vote thoughtlessly and stand behind poor candidates. We need to emulate that so that we can also vote in poor candidates to counteract that. We should do this, like they do, without real discussion or demands for accountability.

It is already to our detriment. That's what the article is about.
My comment said that people who regurgitate the blue no matter who line are the problem unless they demand accountability or action as a preface. so you.

Stop pushing the narrative of voter accountability and shift that on to candidates. Nobody has to fall in love but also if you keep asking people to vote with a gun to their head without offering a path away from that, eventually they will just accept the gun. To all of our detriment.

ThunderingJerboa

•

Its clear you are being an idealist. It just seems rather unrealistic. You may not like the idea of "voter accountability" narrative but it is the bloody answer. Nearly 30% of eligible voters didn't even bloody vote and I'm talking about the 2020 election. Which is the election with one of the highest turnouts in recent memory. Also we as voters should be participating in the primaries/caucuses, it is a part of our civic duty. We can desire accountability from our candidates but we voters also need to be accountable for our (as a whole) inaction, primaries have an attendance of around 30-20% for both parties combined. This calculation is also only based on votes during primary divided by eligible voters in that state. None of the values I have found divide the number of votes by the amount of registered party members and I feel that number will be a bit more enlightening even though it will be flawed unless it was a closed primary because Democrats are thought to have the higher population appeal but my own assumptions would tell me they are also the ones who are the least likely to attend these events even though these events are the ones who decide who will be the running on the ballot in the general election.

Sure you may want to be this idealist but face the fact that authorities aren't the only ones who need to be held accountable.

TinyPizza

•

I love the idea of getting people out to vote. I've knocked on thousands of doors for dems to such ends. How is asking more of politicians and calling them out unrealistic? Is that not what the Kochs and other wealthy conservatives did when they funded the "grassroots" Tea party which then largely began a race to the right for Republicans? Because that worked.

I can understand that frustration with voters. How about we demand legislation making the vote mandatory (like australia) or that all votes be made federal holidays? The point is that there's things that can be done. More than the bare minimum isn't idealism. And we can say we'd never get the votes, but why not try? Republicans literally trot out legislation that would never pass for that very reason.

My point is that the authorities are in no way being held to account and that I'm sick of people only putting the blame at the feet of the voters. We can't even trust candidates to act as Dems, such as Sinema or Cotham. Why is a call for greater candidate accountability at all "idealist" in the face of this stuff?

ThunderingJerboa

•

I can understand that frustration with voters. How about we demand legislation making the vote mandatory (like australia) or that all votes be made federal holidays?

So charge the poor because their work doesn't give them days off on voting day. I mean we can push for things hell the whole covid thing has actually helped quite a bit for pushing mail in voting. I think this has been bloody great since it allows people to research their candidates at length and mail in your ballot once you are done and ready. It should just be an automatic thing but many will fight against it.

My point is that the authorities are in no way being held to account and that I'm sick of people only putting the blame at the feet of the voters. We can't even trust candidates to act as Dems, such as Sinema or Cotham. Why is a call for greater candidate accountability at all "idealist" in the face of this stuff?

So tell me how you plan on holding them to account? Realistically the only thing you can do is vote them out in the next election, which again falls back to the voter to be aware of what they did and make sure it doesn't happen again. The only thing else would having to be proposing a provision in the law for a recall but beyond that the answer is always going to be a vigilant and active voter base. We live in a world where people can barely give a shit about politics already

TinyPizza

•

To your first point:
A holiday to highlight both the importance of elections and give people time to vote in the manner they deem fit is a minimal loss of income in return for the guarantee they are not disenfranchised. It's not only a net gain down the line for increased wages and benefits but also important in the ability to make voting a family affair. Additionally, you framing it as a financial burden or tax upon the poor feels gross and makes me wonder about your intent. If you're worried about people living paycheck to paycheck, then we figure out a stipend or credit to be determined at tax time and or more immediate emergency financial assistance where needed. We pay people for jury duty, why not credit them for voting?

 Lets do mail ins too, but understand that plenty of states go out of their way to disenfranchise voters and will not approve such a thing. Truly, for it to be a yearly recognized holiday congress must approve it, but singular one offs have happened by EO before, they just need to be cleverly worded. When it comes to voting, presenting every possible option and greatest window of time should always be the bare minimum we strive for, regardless of which party or candidate it benefits.

To your second point:
Off the top of my head we develop some sort of actionable pledge of intent or pact that we should get candidates to sign on to as a contract. Again, I don't like it but the tea party had a similar "contract from America" It should state a candidates outward opinions and beliefs and outline from that baseline a point that they identify that they will not cross. If a candidate voluntarily signs themselves into legal liability that could devastate their current and future financial holdings it should act as a buffer to corruption.

Have the DNC adopt a base form of this and help to bankroll any litigation that comes from it. Nothing overtly wild in any of that. Just basically saying you are unequivocally center or to the left and what your current set of beliefs are. People sign contracts and NDA's for work as a standard and I see little difference in that mechanism. There's certainly alternatives to that but there's at least one option. I'm sure people can figure out others that would serve the similar purpose of vetting yourself to the public and staying true to some sort of set of core principals.

People might start to give a shit if they see a meaningful change.

Edit: formatting change from numbered list to listed points, because the published version looked bunched up. deleted repeat word typo

Hobovision

•

You can both vote for the better candidate in an election, which will be blue almost every time, and be an activist and push for an cause progress above and beyond what the Dems are willing and able to do themselves. But using the fact that they don't do enough or don't effectively stop the insane right wing as a reason to either not vote or vote for a candidate with 0% chance of winning is foolish and the reason we are where we are right now.

TinyPizza

•

I'm not sure who said not to vote or to vote 3rd party anywhere in this thread?

Also, that would not be the reason we are here right now.

We've been presented with a binary choice of evil and lesser evil. The greater evil of christo-fascism was always waiting for its moment. Tracing that to any definitive event is an exercise in futility. It could be Dem politicians shifting economically right after Regan to try to capture "moderates." It could be electing a black president, whose mere existence the right took as an affront to their American tradition of closeted racist jokes. It could be yoloing a presidential candidate and just assuming a win because the other candidate is a joke. It probably wasn't any of those things, but we shouldn't be trying to frame our abusers actions as our fault to begin with.

ProcurementCat

•

Permanently Deleted

TinyPizza

•

Ah yes, it was us the unmotivated and uncaring general public who gave Republicans every victory and are responsible for a branch of government we have absolutely no say in determining, nominating or appointing outside of our ability to "vote blue." Beyond the vanity of RGB not wanting to step down or clearly recognizing disturbing precedents after Bush Vs Gore, it falls on the back of the voter to do more and accept less. Sure, leadership completely slept and let Republicans gerrymander half the country so bad that we lose even when we show up in greater numbers at every election. But please, won't you think of all the people we've failed to help while we were in office and keep electing us so that we at some point we may help them?

You post a list of all these people and things that establishment Dems have failed to protect for the last 30 years and say that's the reason they need your vote no matter what? That pretty gross. The entirety of my point is that message needs to be prefaced, exactly by people like you, with calls for accountability and higher standards in who we are voting in to office. If these politicians are such masters of the craft then why the hell are they so good at fundraising and so bad at winning these battles. The old guard has failed us. Stop making such a spectacle of tongue tickling their footware and attempting to convince others that it's virtuous.

If you want to make a difference, then why don't you take my suggestion and start pushing for candidates who will go beyond their performative grandstanding and actually start fighting back against these things. Speaking out for promissory blocks or attempting to better the pool of candidates by demanding more isn't going to change the taste of the blooker all that much. The people that we're trying to stop need a higher caliber of opponent if we're going to succeed.

Also, Hillary lost because she was an uninspired candidate who didn't really try and arrogantly thought it was in the bag. It was literally her election to lose and she did. Get over it.

ProcurementCat

•

Permanently Deleted

TinyPizza

•

Again, the election was hers to lose and she did just that. You are the one who's still pulling your hair out and blaming the entirety of the American public for not voting for her. Trump was like her hand picked candidate to run against and she whiffed to an illiterate serial rapist who used the word "big" 3 times per sentence.
Get a grip. The last person who used the "I kNow yOu arE But whaT Am I?" defense was Paul Ruebens and you don't have the gas nor the shoes to pull off that bar top dance. Truly astonishing to talk to you through this time portal all the way back in 2016. Move on with your life.

ProcurementCat

•

Permanently Deleted

TinyPizza

•

Whatever you need to tell yourself to support your delusion.