3.5 years too late. Why the fuck wasn’t this the first thing you did in office.
The old guard thinks (not incorrectly, I should add) that you can get way more average-and-dumber people to remember that they like you, and thus vote for you, if you do something splashy RIGHT before the election. It’s infuriatingly cynical, and it’s all for optics.
I’ll give you one guess
Battle box?
Nema toads?
All good ideas… that can’t go anywhere as long as Republicans control the House and demand 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.
At this point I believe they will ignore/disavow any voting result that does not benefit them, even if it was an overwhelming result.
And that is how you stay the nominee.
No its not, this is election year pandering. IF elected all these things will go on the back burner, or shelved until a more convenient season
This is what drives me crazy about Biden; 2 years ago, the Supreme Court overturns Roe, Biden says, “this must not be the final word,” but does nothing to reign in the court. 1 year ago, the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, Biden says, “this is not a normal court,” but rejects calls expand the court. Now, the Supreme Court has effectively given the President immunity from all crimes, he finally comes up with a set of decent court reforms, 4 months before the election, when his political position is at the weakest it’s been for his entire presidency. He’s such a blind institutionalist that he allowed an American institution to wage war on America’s government and its people for almost his entire term before he got serious about doing anything about it.
He’s not serious now.
He better hop to it, hes only got 7 more months.
He can’t do any of it without a filibuater-proof Senate majority (which could mean 51 Senators who are willing to amend the filibuster at the start of the 2025 session).
They’ve had dozens of chances for that over dozens of years and won’t because they need that rotating villain in the event they can’t find someone from their own party to be the rotating villain.
They’ve had dozens of chances for that over dozens of years
From 1980-present the Democratic party has had a filibuater-proof majority in the Senate once, in Obama’s first 2 years, and they passed the ACA with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
The Senate only needs 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster. With Independents they have that right now
Except
CinemaSinema and Manchin have both stated that changing the filibuster is a hard no for both of them. So no, we do not have 51 Senators caucusing Democratic and willing to touch the filibuster.And where were the calls to primary anyone that would vote against it?
You’re coming across like you just like to rage without actually paying attention.
Voters had been calling for a primary challenge to both for basically the entirety of Biden’s term (since some of the earliest legislative efforts with reconciliation bills including a minimum wage increase, I believe), up until they both registered as Independent and neither are running for re-election, so the primary became moot. However, the W. Virginia seat (Manchin’s) is likely to go R this year, so that doesn’t help us for things like judicial appointments where Manchin was reliable. Arizona (Sinema’s seat) we have a chance.
I’m sure he’ll get this done before November, then it’s on to world peace!
This is about as credible as horny milfs near me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden is seriously considering publicly endorsing major reforms at the Supreme Court, a move that would make him the first sitting president in generations to back seismic changes to the way the nation’s highest court operates, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations.
Chief among the changes Biden is planning to publicly back are term limits for the nine justices, who currently serve lifetime appointments.
Additionally, Biden is considering whether he should push for a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the historic ruling from the court earlier this month that gave presidents immunity for some actions they take while in office.
But as the Supreme Court came under intense scrutiny in 2023 following a series of blockbuster investigative pieces that turned a spotlight on the ethical alleged lapses of several of the justices, Democrats in Congress pushed for meaningful reforms at the court, though the issue never fully gained steam.
The nine justices eventually released an ethics code in November that did little to assuage concerns from the court’s critics.
The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.
The original article contains 343 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
And remove the electoral college. Replace it with continuous vote by phone.
Hmmm this guy left to Cancun during the hurricane??..might as well stay there buddy! -unvote!
Ohh, it’s not possible, it will be hacked!.. Screw you! That’s a big bs sandwich 🥪 nobody believes anymore. Bring vote by phone 🤳 and let us tell you what we think.
I kinda like the idea of these shitheads requiring ongoing approval to continue governing if that’s what you mean by continuous. Amazing.
Yes exactly…they guy show’s up to an interview and mentions how he grabs women and then the next he’s not president again.
Joe Biden is the best presidential candidate for this election.
id rather vote for a ham sandwich.
