471
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
471 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3384 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here's the problem with a constitutional amendment:
You will never, ever get a single politician to vote for an amendment specifically designed to weaken the power of their own party leader. No Republican will ever vote for this, especially right now when there's so much momentum going Trump's way. It. Will. Never. Happen.
I have a better chance of Taylor Swift dumping her boyfriend and declaring her undying love for me during her next concert than a single Republican voting in favor of this. This is performance and nothing more.
The only realistic path to reversing this is:
Rinse and repeat for every bad decision this half-baked court has made.
This is it. That is the only path. Any other attempt to fix these problems either require a constitutional amendment no GOP politician or governor would ever vote for or ratify or can simply be struck down by the very Supreme Court that caused this mess in the first place.
There’s also the malicious compliance path (which, to be fair, would also have more than its fair share of dire complications and implications, but it would at least address the immediate and imminent threat of a fascist takeover in 4 months).
But Biden is 100% not going to do that.
You don't need Republicans to expand the court. Just saying. It's not the ONLY path.
About the standing thing: the beauty is the current Supreme Court has eliminated that as a real requirement, so you can just have someone sue for theoretical harm and be all good.
There's also having a Democrat abuse this in a way that is directly a danger to GOP politicians and using Biden as a sacrificial lamb. Something like ordering the military to execute several members of Congress and SCOTUS justices and then pardoning them.
But let's be fair, the underlying argument they're using is one meant to do things like not make the president guilty of murder for anyone killed by the military or in action under the military, not to protect Trump from conspiring to do crimes with people in his admin.
I agree but there is another path: if Democrats win both houses of Congress and the President, and Senate Democrats agree to blow up the filibuster, they can pack the court whenever they want.
I am of the opinion they should slam the Court up to 11 right away, then 13 in time for the 2026 court term. Then go to Republicans and say "You can let us put four 40-ish Liberals on the Court for lifetime appointments, and gamble on getting your own trifecta to re-pack it, or you can work with us on an amendment to reform the court, put in term limits, and limit its partisanship".
What's interesting is that this precise scenario happened in the 1910s in the UK (given that at the time the house of lords was the highest court in the country as well as the upper legislative chamber). Lloyd George called an election on the subject, and negotiated with the king that if the lords didn't vote for a reduction in their powers, he would create a massive influx of Liberal peers.
Interesting episode in history.
If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it's fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn't have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.
For number 3, if they really wanted to save us, on their last day the could "officially" order a marine to steal a lollipop from a baby. I'd give it right back, and there may be a better, less painful law, but he could break it and get charged. Maybe speeding. I wonder if there is a precident and another president has been held to the law before. I Grant you that the court in is current state would ignore it.