• CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    Remember that this whole time biden could have packed the SCOTUS and turned the Republican majority into a Democrat majority. Nothing in our Constitution says only 9 supreme court appointees. He’s just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn’t want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.

    If it was trump he would have (and did) wielded the knife of political power with no hesitation but the moment Democrats have the knife they hold it with fear the Republicans would accuse them of being partisan.

      • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s possible but there was at least an opportunity to try putting forth some moderate judges which would have a chance to pull over center Republicans or Sinema/Manchin. Or at least force the issue. I believe they also had a chance after Roe V Wade before election time in November when the political will was more there to defend the abortion issue by getting a supreme court more favorable on the issue

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      He’s just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn’t want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.

      This is ABSOLUTELY wrong and /u/exanime pointed that out to you already. Manchin and Sinema said they would have blocked it. It would not have succeeded because they sold their souls NOT because biden is tOo LiBeRaL. Jesus christ.

      The Biden admin has fought tooth and nail for things that are actually fucking possible and the average american has benefited. We all want to expand this illegitimate court but you simply CANNOT pin the blame on Biden’s chest.

      What about Obama?? Where was the packing of the court then? You know, that time in which he could have forced RBG out and chosen a pick but instead mitch pushed for the AmErIcAn PeOpLe to get the choice (and then did the exact opposite when it was trumps turn). Too much of a lib as well?

      • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        So much lib apologism holy shit. First of all I responded to the users comment. They are correct about that but just because the two said they would oppose doesn’t mean biden did his best.

        The biden admin fought tooth and nail? What did he fight for? You think I’m supposed to accept the one thing he fought for, student debt cancellation as some sort of pity policy? Trump came out all the time pushing the window to the right, fighting for his policy. You literally could not make him shut up about the border while Biden hardly ever used his platform meaningfully to bully others in the government into doing what needed to be done to build political power for the democrats. If you can’t see that then I think you might not understand the full extent of the power of the presidency. Where’s decriminalizing weed? When did he push for the minimum wage? Those were like his main campaign promises. The worst part is especially with weed he could have just descheduled it but instead he just lowered it by a single schedule to raise his approval rating.

        I don’t get why you have such a hard-on for biden. He did some good things but that doesn’t excuse his negligent misuse of his political appointment at a time when our democracy depends on it.

        With regards to Obama, do I have to complain about every politician I don’t like whenever I criticize any other politician? Obama sucked at this too and this is in many ways more his fault than Biden’s but do I really need to bring him up every time I go to criticize other democrats?!

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      And what would stop the next Republican president from packing the court further to have a conservative majority again?

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Packing the court solves nothing as it can be immediately reversed as soon as a Republican is in office.

          • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            In the case they reverse it then we are back at square 1 except we had a more progressive supreme court for a bit. I don’t see how this makes our situation worse. I guess we should also give up and never bother with executive orders since they can just be undone when the Republicans get in

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It’s moot, anyway, as the President doesn’t have the power to add Justice vacancies. That’s Congress’s job.

          • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The new surpreme court could chance the laws so that is no longer possible.

            Undo the current surpreme court laws, and weaken the powers of the president before Trump gains power.

      • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I hate this reasoning. They would do it anyway! They attempted a coup. You really think they would stop because there’s some gentleman’s agreement not to add more?

        Trump and the GOP have always used these gentleman’s agreements against the Democrats when they are in power and ignored them when it was their time. Obama did the same shit when he was in office not forcing through the supreme court appointee.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          One thing that people seem to be missing is that the President cannot add SCOTUS vacancies. Only Congress can.

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            And it is the President’s responsibility to nominate justices, so if the majority party just nullifies every single nominee until they can secure the presidency, we shouldn’t pretend that they aren’t obstructing the operation of government to try to seize power.

            All of this “but the government actually works this one specific way” argument isn’t much of a real argument when the issue is that bad faith actors are exploiting and weaponizing the way our government works in order to destroy it and to turn it into a dictatorship.

          • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Dems had majority in the house and senate. If they managed to get all dems to agree (which is not guaranteed) in the Senate on the appointee) then in all likelihood they would be able to increase the size with congress

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              They’d have to have a supermajority in both, which is an impossibility with current gerrymandering. Really, I think the Judicial branch needs a serious overhaul from the bottom up. 9 unelected lifetime appointees getting to decide what the law means for over 300 million people is ridiculously easy to exploit, which we’re seeing now.

              • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                They would have to do the nuclear option and crush the filibuster. I agree with you though on the lifetime appointees thing. They really should have terms and elections