She writes that many Democratic voters are “demoralized” about the Supreme Court and blame President Joe Biden for the abortion decision since it happened on his watch.
What kind of moron thinks the sitting President has any say in how the supreme court decides? I mean maybe a bit if that President has appointed a new Justice, but even then, not really.
It’s mostly idiots in the flyover states whose votes literally have more power due to the vagaries of the us electoral system. If that wasn’t a thing, and gerrymandering was declared unequivocally illegal, we would have a much better chance of rational leadership now and in the long run. But, infuriatingly, our system is intentionally designed to be undemocratic in a few very important ways.
It is unfortunately extremely common for the average American to think that the current president has direct and immediate control over quite a lot of things which they do not. Like inflation and gas prices. Or who the DOJ prosecutes and for what. And on and on.
Sadly, most of them are adults who are beyond education because they are too stuck in the team-based mentality. Hopefully the younger ones can still learn.
There are many, many, many low-info voters that think exactly like that.
Sadly.
I've seen bothsideser clowns on Lemmy write this. With 100% certainty they know better, but I assume they continue writing it because it fools some idiots some of the time.
Presidents can push to have decrepit old justices from their own party retire so he/she can replace them with a younger model before the next election.
It was literally in his power to expand the court and appoint uncorrupt judges before Dobbs happened.
There had been almost 30 years of warnings that right wing activist judges wanted to overturn Roe and several years of people suggesting ways within the power of him and the Congressional majority he leads to prevent it.
Yeah, all that link gives me is an obvious lie. Not the best sign as to the truthfulness of the actual article..
I see. So you live in Europe and your goal is not to learn how the US Constitution stipulates that Congress, not POTUS, determines the number of justices, but to spread misinformation in the US, presumably with the goal of creating political division.
Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
So you live in Europe and your goal is (...) to spread misinformation in the US, presumably with the goal of creating political division
Absolutely not. Cool it with the bigoted snap judgments, please.
Congress, not POTUS, determines the number of justices
So when there's something necessary that he refuses to do, you're going to pretend that his urging does nothing, making him powerless to influence Congress?
I bet you don't give him credit for any of his signature bills that Congress passed either, right? Right??
Do you claim to be a United States citizen?
Nope. That doesn't mean that I'm some shady operative spreading misinformation to destabilize American democracy like you're insinuating, though.
That's just you trying to use bigotry to prop up your bad arguments.
What "arguments"? This isn't a debate. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a political view like you are. I'm debunking your misinformation with the fact that only the Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices, through legislation, including links to sources--but anyone can simply read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution and the history of how Congress set up the courts to understand that this is the case.
The fact that you keep insisting falsely that Biden could have done it himself shows that you have a political agenda. The fact that you aren't from the US and keep repeating a false, divisive talking point in spite of it being disproven shows that you have a political agenda. We aren't falling for it. Go back to twitter and FB where you'll find more gullible marks to buy your propaganda.
That pretty much says in a very loud voice that the EU wants trump bsck
Nope, this is the choice of the site and has nothing to do with the content of the article.
It's them choosing that they'd rather ban the entire EU than follow common sense pro-consumer cookie regulations.
Most of the EU is actually to the LEFT of Biden, let alone a literal fascist like Trump.
It was literally in his power to expand the court and appoint uncorrupt judges before Dobbs happened.
It was not.
Congress would first have to remove the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.
That was in congressional Democrats' hands. But in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats, all of whom would need to actually vote with their party. Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever. We had the majority. Just enough Democrats preferred the return of coat hanger abortions to relegating a procedural relic of Jim Crow to the shitpile of history where it has always belonged.
the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.
That cap was one supreme court judge per circuit court. As there are 13 circuits now, it's precedent FOR expanding the court, not against.
in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats
Ah, the eternal "we can't do the obviously right thing because of the filibuster" Dem leadership excuse. Turns out that, like most of their other excuses, that's complete hogwash
Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever.
Again, not true. That's just another "we are powerless to change anything because the system won't let us" copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.
To quote the article linked above:
Like Dorothy in Oz, they’ve always had the power to get home. Unlike Dorothy, they’ve always known. They’ve just chosen not to use it.
This is a very interesting distinction. Thank you for this info.
Again, not true. That’s just another “we are powerless to change anything because the system won’t let us” copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Democrats could have ended the filibuster with a simple majority, but they didn't want to. They preferred allowing Republicans to win on abortion to getting rid of their procedural excuse for inaction.
And I'm saying that they didn't even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want. They don't need 50 votes to permanently dismantle it when they can already do it at will on a case by case basis.
And I’m saying that they didn’t even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want.
My reading of the law differs from yours on this, but I believe we agree more broadly that Democrats desperately need to stop making excuses and get out of their own way.
What kind of moron thinks the sitting President has any say in how the supreme court decides? I mean maybe a bit if that President has appointed a new Justice, but even then, not really.
It’s mostly idiots in the flyover states whose votes literally have more power due to the vagaries of the us electoral system. If that wasn’t a thing, and gerrymandering was declared unequivocally illegal, we would have a much better chance of rational leadership now and in the long run. But, infuriatingly, our system is intentionally designed to be undemocratic in a few very important ways.
It is unfortunately extremely common for the average American to think that the current president has direct and immediate control over quite a lot of things which they do not. Like inflation and gas prices. Or who the DOJ prosecutes and for what. And on and on.
Sadly, most of them are adults who are beyond education because they are too stuck in the team-based mentality. Hopefully the younger ones can still learn.
There are many, many, many low-info voters that think exactly like that.
Sadly.
I've seen bothsideser clowns on Lemmy write this. With 100% certainty they know better, but I assume they continue writing it because it fools some idiots some of the time.
Presidents can push to have decrepit old justices from their own party retire so he/she can replace them with a younger model before the next election.
It was literally in his power to expand the court and appoint uncorrupt judges before Dobbs happened.
There had been almost 30 years of warnings that right wing activist judges wanted to overturn Roe and several years of people suggesting ways within the power of him and the Congressional majority he leads to prevent it.
No, it literally was not. Again, POTUS is not an emperor! Congress has to do it by passing legislation.
Yeah, all that link gives me is an obvious lie. Not the best sign as to the truthfulness of the actual article..
I see. So you live in Europe and your goal is not to learn how the US Constitution stipulates that Congress, not POTUS, determines the number of justices, but to spread misinformation in the US, presumably with the goal of creating political division.
From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq\_general.aspx
Some history: https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
Absolutely not. Cool it with the bigoted snap judgments, please.
So when there's something necessary that he refuses to do, you're going to pretend that his urging does nothing, making him powerless to influence Congress?
I bet you don't give him credit for any of his signature bills that Congress passed either, right? Right??
Do you claim to be a United States citizen?
Nope. That doesn't mean that I'm some shady operative spreading misinformation to destabilize American democracy like you're insinuating, though.
That's just you trying to use bigotry to prop up your bad arguments.
What "arguments"? This isn't a debate. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a political view like you are. I'm debunking your misinformation with the fact that only the Congress can change the number of Supreme Court justices, through legislation, including links to sources--but anyone can simply read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution and the history of how Congress set up the courts to understand that this is the case.
The fact that you keep insisting falsely that Biden could have done it himself shows that you have a political agenda. The fact that you aren't from the US and keep repeating a false, divisive talking point in spite of it being disproven shows that you have a political agenda. We aren't falling for it. Go back to twitter and FB where you'll find more gullible marks to buy your propaganda.
That pretty much says in a very loud voice that the EU wants trump bsck
Nope, this is the choice of the site and has nothing to do with the content of the article.
It's them choosing that they'd rather ban the entire EU than follow common sense pro-consumer cookie regulations.
Most of the EU is actually to the LEFT of Biden, let alone a literal fascist like Trump.
It was not.
Congress would first have to remove the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.
That was in congressional Democrats' hands. But in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats, all of whom would need to actually vote with their party. Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever. We had the majority. Just enough Democrats preferred the return of coat hanger abortions to relegating a procedural relic of Jim Crow to the shitpile of history where it has always belonged.
That cap was one supreme court judge per circuit court. As there are 13 circuits now, it's precedent FOR expanding the court, not against.
Ah, the eternal "we can't do the obviously right thing because of the filibuster" Dem leadership excuse. Turns out that, like most of their other excuses, that's complete hogwash
Again, not true. That's just another "we are powerless to change anything because the system won't let us" copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.
To quote the article linked above:
This is a very interesting distinction. Thank you for this info.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Democrats could have ended the filibuster with a simple majority, but they didn't want to. They preferred allowing Republicans to win on abortion to getting rid of their procedural excuse for inaction.
And I'm saying that they didn't even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want. They don't need 50 votes to permanently dismantle it when they can already do it at will on a case by case basis.
My reading of the law differs from yours on this, but I believe we agree more broadly that Democrats desperately need to stop making excuses and get out of their own way.