874
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 01 Jul 2024
874 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1713 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
Remember that this whole time biden could have packed the SCOTUS and turned the Republican majority into a Democrat majority. Nothing in our Constitution says only 9 supreme court appointees. He's just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn't want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.
If it was trump he would have (and did) wielded the knife of political power with no hesitation but the moment Democrats have the knife they hold it with fear the Republicans would accuse them of being partisan.
Didn't they and Manchin and Sinema promised to block it?
Well now Biden can kill them, officially
He won’t though because he’s a spineless liberal.
Why couldn't Biden have gotten the fun kind of dementia instead of the Everywhere at the End of Time kind of dementia
That would be great. Surely making people into martyrs will definitely go well for the entire left.
I'm glad we're in agreement
It's possible but there was at least an opportunity to try putting forth some moderate judges which would have a chance to pull over center Republicans or Sinema/Manchin. Or at least force the issue. I believe they also had a chance after Roe V Wade before election time in November when the political will was more there to defend the abortion issue by getting a supreme court more favorable on the issue
Liberals love to maintain the status quo with small, incremental changes.
Capitalism loves unfettered, infinite growth. This is such a small minded, short term mindset. I much prefer a "controlled and sustainable" growth approach. Liberals are trying to build an equitable country for all of us and our progeny, the other side is trying to cash out before it all comes crashing down. It's disgusting. But history repeats itself, because humans are the common factor and humans, broadly, suck.
You can’t say Liberals are trying to build an equitable country when they clearly are not, while trying to pin the blame on “humans”.
Humans are not the problem, capitalism is the problem. The capitalist system is working exactly as intended - putting all the wealth in the hands of a few men while making slaves of the rest of us.
You cannot build an equitable or sustainable society in the capitalist system. It will always lead to fascism and ruin.
The capitalism that the Liberals love is the same capitalism that the Republicans love. It doesn’t make much difference if you stick a rainbow flag on it. There is no nice version of capitalism. There’s nothing “controlled or sustainable” about neoliberal capitalism.
Please stop trying to blame humans for being forced with violence, homelessness, and starvation to try to survive in a cannibalistic system that forces people to become greedy. I’m tired of hearing the Malthusian untrue “humans suck” meme. Humans learn from the conditions they are raised in. There is nothing inherently greedy in humans. That is purely conditioning. If we lived in a society that rewarded cooperation and didn’t threaten us with homelessness and death for not being obedient slaves we would be cooperative and have the possibility to work toward building a sustainable society.
Oh yes, that magical system that was created by ghosts or ghouls or something other than a human.
Humans are the problem and have always been the problem. Hell, we even invented the word problem to describe all of the problems we have, and cause!
This is ABSOLUTELY wrong and /u/exanime pointed that out to you already. Manchin and Sinema said they would have blocked it. It would not have succeeded because they sold their souls NOT because biden is tOo LiBeRaL. Jesus christ.
The Biden admin has fought tooth and nail for things that are actually fucking possible and the average american has benefited. We all want to expand this illegitimate court but you simply CANNOT pin the blame on Biden's chest.
What about Obama?? Where was the packing of the court then? You know, that time in which he could have forced RBG out and chosen a pick but instead mitch pushed for the AmErIcAn PeOpLe to get the choice (and then did the exact opposite when it was trumps turn). Too much of a lib as well?
So much lib apologism holy shit. First of all I responded to the users comment. They are correct about that but just because the two said they would oppose doesn't mean biden did his best.
The biden admin fought tooth and nail? What did he fight for? You think I'm supposed to accept the one thing he fought for, student debt cancellation as some sort of pity policy? Trump came out all the time pushing the window to the right, fighting for his policy. You literally could not make him shut up about the border while Biden hardly ever used his platform meaningfully to bully others in the government into doing what needed to be done to build political power for the democrats. If you can't see that then I think you might not understand the full extent of the power of the presidency. Where's decriminalizing weed? When did he push for the minimum wage? Those were like his main campaign promises. The worst part is especially with weed he could have just descheduled it but instead he just lowered it by a single schedule to raise his approval rating.
I don't get why you have such a hard-on for biden. He did some good things but that doesn't excuse his negligent misuse of his political appointment at a time when our democracy depends on it.
With regards to Obama, do I have to complain about every politician I don't like whenever I criticize any other politician? Obama sucked at this too and this is in many ways more his fault than Biden's but do I really need to bring him up every time I go to criticize other democrats?!
And what would stop the next Republican president from packing the court further to have a conservative majority again?
And this goes back and forth until there are 100s on the Supreme Court
Biden not doing something out of principle is not a guarantee Trump won't do it. The contrary is often true.
Packing the court solves nothing as it can be immediately reversed as soon as a Republican is in office.
In the case they reverse it then we are back at square 1 except we had a more progressive supreme court for a bit. I don't see how this makes our situation worse. I guess we should also give up and never bother with executive orders since they can just be undone when the Republicans get in
It's moot, anyway, as the President doesn't have the power to add Justice vacancies. That's Congress's job.
The new surpreme court could chance the laws so that is no longer possible.
Undo the current surpreme court laws, and weaken the powers of the president before Trump gains power.
I hate this reasoning. They would do it anyway! They attempted a coup. You really think they would stop because there's some gentleman's agreement not to add more?
Trump and the GOP have always used these gentleman's agreements against the Democrats when they are in power and ignored them when it was their time. Obama did the same shit when he was in office not forcing through the supreme court appointee.
One thing that people seem to be missing is that the President cannot add SCOTUS vacancies. Only Congress can.
Dems had majority in the house and senate. If they managed to get all dems to agree (which is not guaranteed) in the Senate on the appointee) then in all likelihood they would be able to increase the size with congress
They'd have to have a supermajority in both, which is an impossibility with current gerrymandering. Really, I think the Judicial branch needs a serious overhaul from the bottom up. 9 unelected lifetime appointees getting to decide what the law means for over 300 million people is ridiculously easy to exploit, which we're seeing now.
They would have to do the nuclear option and crush the filibuster. I agree with you though on the lifetime appointees thing. They really should have terms and elections