Likely the nuclear option for a lame duck Biden.

The Democrats are fucking weak, and although I will continue to vote for them, i am ashamed of them.

Biden won’t do shit with his newfound power, even though he should to defend this country because it’s under attack.

Who cares how old they are as long as they have the right positions on the issues and a sound mind? I love having people with some wisdom in there.

Is there anyone younger with stances like Bernie?

Bernie will be 87 in 2028.

Trump is mentally challenged and he’s still running

Would be easily the biggest age gap between president and vice president

Nah, I’d take a turd sandwich over Pritzker any day.

Why would we have a PM? We already have the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. And the PM wouldn’t be able to exercise any executive powers unless you burned the constitution, because separation of powers.

There’s not really a good reason to adopt a parliamentary system like the UK’s for example if we were to completely reform the government imo. Or to have a PM separate from the president at all.

Fucking Brilliant. Biden could just pull out the ol’ uno reverse right now.

Why not? What does age have to do with it? Or his skin color? Or being male?

Is it the age that bothers you or is it the cognitive decline/attitudes that typically come with age?

I don’t know much about Bernie but it seems like he doesn’t have much of the latter

Presidents can have a little coup, as a treat

**Only official coups

Yes, but only Republicans, Amiright?

…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine

Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.

And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.

they have no power of enforcement themselves

…which is why they’re working in tandem with the corrupt GOP, which does have the power. There isn’t a separation of powers in practice, just Democrats and Republicans.

If we can organize to that level, why not take it one step farther? We could have actual democracy. It’d be a lot more stable, and more people would be willing to fight (and die) for it than preserving a broken status quo that pretty much everyone hates.

And his die hard supporters on here wonder why people don’t want to vote for Biden just because it keeps Trump out of office. Biden isn’t fighting this fight. The democrats are asleep at the wheel, another 4 years of, “oh no, poor me, SCOTUS said we can’t do this, we just have to executive order the most conservative policy in 60 years.” Does not excite the people who are willing to go vote.

Yall gonna hate me, but it is on the presidential ballot, Jill Stein has come out supporting term limits and expanding the court after this fiasco.

Yeah I just saw that. Ridiculous.
And in 2 years he’ll probably “regret” not doing anything.

Oh man, someone woke up the idiot today. Are Wednesdays the day you’re allowed to talk to other people?

As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.

*and even the number of democrats minus 50 don’t want to. So even one (plus Harris helping) in the first two years of the term or even two (if Harris helps again) in the second two years of the past term. It’s not like all democrats are unified about the filibuster, most voted to bypass it. You need either more than 60 dems total, or more than 50 dems that support bypassing the filibuster.

Or you know, even a single republican that doesn’t want to be a facist helping to transition the country to authoritarian rule. But that seems less likely unfortunately.

And 2/3 of both houses is easy mode compared to State ratification. We couldn’t get states to agree that the sky is blue at this point in the collapse of the country.

There are a few ways to reform the court without a Constitutional amendment:

• Increase the number of justices on the bench. The Constitution sets no limit or requirement for the number of seats, only the process by which they are filled. Nomination comes from POTUS and will need to be “consented” to by the Senate. The number of seats has changed in the past and will change again, just a matter of when and who stuffs the court.
• Establish bounds of “good Behavior” and define means of removal. The Constitution isn’t very cut and dry on the removal process of Justices (with impeachment being reserved for the “President, Vice President, and all civil Officers” the latter group being left undefined), but it does say that the Judges shall “hold their Offices during good Behavior.” Historically impeachment has been the process chosen for removal of Judges, but discussion about Congress’ role in defining “good Behavior” and the means for removal have persisted even into the late 1900s. It is entirely feasible that Congress imposes a code of conduct and simple majority review to remove those found in violation. That code of conduct doesn’t just have to be about taking free vacations, either. It could assess the quality of judgement and find that if you clearly ignored the facts of a case to push your own narrative (such as with KENNEDY v. BREMERTON) you’re in violation.
• Establish a term limit for the Supreme Court and rotate Justices into lower courts when that limit is reached. This one is probably the longest shot as it would depend on whether or not a Justice’s “Office” is literally the Supreme Court or the federal Judicial system as a whole and that interpretation would almost definitely be seized by SCOTUS if Congress even attempted this. But, so long as Congress and the Executive are in agreement on the specific interpretation, SCOTUS’ opinion here can be suppressed. Worth noting, however, that that is very rarely how the US operates.
• Remove Judicial Review. The idea that the courts have the sole authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress is not found in the Constitution itself, but was manifested by the same court that benefits from granting itself that power. It’s the executive branch’s job to enforce the law and both Congress and POTUS are elected to represent the people. SCOTUS’s job is to resolve conflicts involving the States and those who work with them, they are not accountable to anyone and are not elected. A new law ceding the ability to review constitutionality to some other branch would reset SCOTUS’ job to the original intent (a move which I’m sure the 6 textual literalists will gladly embrace).
• Tailor bills to undo recent catastrophic rulings. Congress makes laws. They can make laws that close “loopholes” or perceived ambiguities that SCOTUS uses to derive their rulings. Congress can (and should) undo presidential immunity, Dobbs, judicial review of government agencies’ actions, etc.

These will all take work to achieve, and are very unlikely to even be tried, but because they all address shortcomings manifest outside of the Constitution they can all be implemented without amendment to the Constitution.

and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.

That’s the rub.

We have things we can do, but party leadership don’t want to do it.

So when they say they can’t do anything, things like “get rid of the filibuster” come up. And they party has to acknowledge that would work…

They’re just not willing to do it.

Which when that comes back to voters, makes them less likely to vote. Because they feel like even when we have the numbers, it won’t change anything because party leadership wants to have the fight against fascism with at least one hand tied behind their back out of an outdated sense of honor.

We’re fucking fighting fascism bro.

What matters is winning.

.

Passing the power along to only anyone they agree with. Biden? Not an official act. Trump? All official acts. They just gave more power to themselves and the presidency.

You’re free to commit terroristic political assassinations if you feel the two party system is too restrictive. It worked fine for Oswald.