Biden worries ‘extreme’ supreme court can’t be relied on to uphold rule of law
Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.
“I worry,” the president told ProPublica in interview published on Sunday. “Because I know that if the other team, the Maga Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”
“Maga” is shorthand for “Make America great again”, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. Trump faces 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats but nonetheless dominates Republican polling for the nomination to face Biden in a presidential rematch next year.
In four years in the White House, Trump nominated and saw installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right. That court has delivered significant victories for conservatives, including the removal of the right to abortion and major rulings on gun control, affirmative action and other issues.
The new court term, which starts on Tuesday, could see further such rulings on matters including government environmental and financial regulation.
Oh, thought we were talking about Biden...
Back when Obama was in office he should have said:
And then just fucking did it. Republicans don't just do what they're allowed, they do everything they can.
That's why their winning. They don't spend half a term discussing if they can do something, they do it and hope it sticks.
You can say that's not how a government should work, and I'd agree. But when 2 people are playing a game without a ref, you better cheat just as hard or you'll never win. Because regardless of if we always play explicitly by the rules or not, they're gonna keep cheating.
We can piss and moan all day about how it shouldn't be like this, but the reality is that it is like this.
We are. You asserted that as Obama's VP "[Biden] was supposed to be the one that got that SC pick thru." And you've been challenged to state how you think Biden could have done that.
Your suggestion what you think Obama should have done belies a misunderstanding of the process. Obama did appoint Merrick Garland. The Constitution says the appointee has to be confirmed by the Senate before they can be seated. The Court isn't going to end-run around that and seat an unconfirmed judge.
The lesson to have learned is not to cheat harder than them, it's that we need to update the rule book to prevent this type of obstruction in the future.
There actually is a loophole that allows for appointments without approval. If the senate is in recess the appointment just happens. The Obama administration tried and failed to argue several lower positions were recess appointments when there were pro forma sessions though. It's really not possible that a justice was going to be seated without approval.
Very true about recess appointments.
Actually during recesses Republicans would leave someone behind to keep the Senate in session. They'd open and then adjourn, essentially blocking recess appointments.
asdfasfa
Lol, I know it's fake internet points, but how does this guy have a positive score for the "direct violation of the constitution" strategy.
sadfasdfasdf
Because your country is rife with people who don’t understand how their own country works.
This board is full of you saying the same thing trying to get people upset. You're not a very good troll.
Im not wrong.
No you're not wrong, you're also not a very good troll.