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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        142 years ago

        The Democrats did that a month ago (and in Aug 2022 as well).

        Notice that it only has a 1% chance of passing at this point (as it’s got to get through the committee first).

        • Cyborganism
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Take a chill pill. I’m not American. I don’t know everything about your system.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            You would do well to indicate in your posts that you know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no business discussing it then. It sounds more like a suggestion than a question.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            You’re good. Sadly, if you don’t repeat the approved narrative you are treated with hostility.

      • Chainweasel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        That’s up to Congress, executive branch has nothing to do with it.

        • Cyborganism
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          I assumed that he could propose a bill or something. And what about executive orders? How does that work? I saw Donald Trump sign some stuff into law while he was in office.

          Sorry, not American. I don’t fully understand how your system works.

          • Chainweasel
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 years ago

            He can suggest a bill, but he can’t submit it himself, someone in the House of Representatives would have to do it for him.
            And as far as executive orders go they can be overturned by Congress or the next sitting president, and there are limitations as to what can and cannot be done via executive order.

            • Cyborganism
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              You’re the only person so far that hasn’t freaked out and have me an explanation. Thank you!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        Not a power that belongs to any branch except through a constitutional amendment. The Constitution says life during good behavior.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          You may want to actually read the Constitution one day. It makes no mention of “life”. Here’s the text of Article III, Section 1:

          The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                While technically true it’s irrelevant as the constitution does not specify any term limits. So yeah - reddit-tier nit-picking over a detail while missing the entire point.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  Technically true? Well, what the other person said was entirely false. It’s not nitpicking when someone says that the constitution says justices have lifetime appointments and it actually doesn’t say that.

                  It becomes relevant very quickly when you want to change the system. An act of Congress requires a majority vote and signature by the president, fairly simple. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both chambers and ratification by 3/4 of the states (or a convention by the states).

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    12 years ago

                    Congress cannot impose SCOTUS term limits by statute. For one, Congress lacks enumerated authority to regulate SCOTUS. For another, even if they did, SCOTUS interprets the constitution to mean life terms, which means any simple statute Congress passes is reviewed… by SCOTUS… as facially unconstitutional.

            • Cyborganism
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Right? Fucking hell…

              If I’m so ignorant of the American democratic system, when I’m not even American myself and was never really educated on the system, would it bother people to explain to me why what I ask is not possible instead of throwing insults?

              The comments in this thread are appalling.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              Do you have any basis in fact for that assertion? If it’s not controlled by the constitution than Congress can set a limit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      112 years ago

      Pack the court it’s with in his power to add justices to the Supreme Court. Democrats have the majority in the Senate so it can be done.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        The court is limited to 9 by law. He’s need a majority in the house and eliminate the filibuster to change that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        Nobody wants to be the first to add justices, because that can become a game of one-upmanship where you’d could theoretically end up with a 91 person SCOTUS.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          You’re not wrong, but the number of justices could be linked to them number of judicial circuits, which now sits at 13.

        • The Pantser
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          What’s wrong with that? More brains the better and when bribes are involved billionaires will have to spend more.

      • HubertManne
        link
        fedilink
        172 years ago

        Where are you getting this idea the president can do this? When you see an article on this type of thing at least check the wikipedia page. I understand how the misunderstanding comes about due to the talk around the new deal in history classes but roosevelt only pushed for congress to act. This is something you see a lot with presidential tenures. They will push congress to act but they themselves can only do so much. It is only in recent times executive orders have been used extensively but this is still limited to what congress did not define and the constitution does not define in law.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          roosevelt only pushed for congress to act.

          That sounds like a good step. Where are Biden’s speeches on pushing Congress to pack the Court?

          • HubertManne
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            I really don’t think he should. It was not a great move by roosevelt either. It was actually about judges retiring. I actually think no one should be holding an office of any kind after 60 myself. Just adding more though is not going to help. Better to impeach them.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              It was not a great move by roosevelt either.

              And yet after it the votes changed and they allowed the New Deal. Courts become less extreme when their comfortable power is threatened.

              What’s your solution to a corrupt court throwing away precedent and making law from the bench? Just pat Mitch McConnel on the back and say “shucks, you got us Mitch, guess we’ll just live the rest of our lives under conservative rule”? Because waiting for 67 Democratic senators or multiple conservative justices dying under Democratic rule isn’t likely to happen.

              Adding more justices may instigate a tit-for-tat, but it’s no worse than just accepting that they get to make law for the rest of your life, and the credible threat of doing it (or the actual practice) is likely to lead to real functional reform.

              • HubertManne
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                I don’t believe the courts “allowed” the new deal because of the court packing idea. The court by its nature can’t change votes whatever you meant by that. I have no solution except impeachment and indictment which I would truly love to see. Taking bribes like that should never be acceptable.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  I have no solution except impeachment and indictment

                  You get that this is functionally no solution at all, right? Even in Obama’s first term there were only 60 Democratic-caucusing senators and a few of those were unreliable DINOs. 67 is a fairy tale. It’s only marginally more likely than just hoping they get raptured.

                  And if that’s the case, which do you prefer:

                  • Living the rest of your life under a conservative court making up law as it goes.
                  • Legally changing the size of the court as has been done before, but in the process breaking precious norms.
                  • HubertManne
                    link
                    fedilink
                    22 years ago

                    See the thing is you talk like changing the size of the court is realistically gonna happen any more than impeachment. Its still requires majorities which are not there. So its like your arguing that we don’t have the number for what I said but we should go for the thing where we still don’t have the numbers but its closer. Its not horseshoes or handgrenades.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 years ago

      He could introduce a plan to reform the courts, but it would ultimately have to go through Congress.

    • themeatbridge
      link
      fedilink
      442 years ago

      There are a few options available. Pack the court, call for ethics inquiries, draw attention to the unconfirmed justices, or literally anything at all. Go on the attack. Be a leader. Demand justice. Biden is content to shrug and say “Ah, well, you see the GOP controls too much, so only if we have all the power can we make things better.”

      He’s not governing, he’s campaigning.

        • themeatbridge
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          Not at all.

          When asked the question directly, Biden paused for a few seconds. Then he sighed and said, “I worry.”

          “Because,” he said, “I know that if the other team, the MAGA Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

          But he said, “I do think at the end of the day, this court, which has been one of the most extreme courts, I still think in the basic fundamentals of rule of law, that they would sustain the rule of law.”