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.

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    151 year 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
      11 year 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
        11 year 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
          11 year 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
            11 year 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
              11 year 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
                11 year 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
                  11 year ago

                  Adding justices takes 50 votes. Impeaching takes 67. That’s a world of difference. It’s not going to happen if everyone up and down the party continually prioritizes making excuses for what can’t happen, but if Biden (and other Democrats) continue to make their case that the court has lost its legitimacy and is in need of reform (i.e., lead) there’s nothing fantastic about getting there.

                  • HubertManne
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    the world of difference does not matter if you don’t have the 50 votes. Why is it less possible to get more republicans to vote on it especially when one, like impeachment, is more legitamate?