• applejacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    imagine creating a button that makes you win, but makes the process far more complicated.

    now imagine, once you’re out of power the other guy can also push the button.

    once pressed, neither side will ever stop pushing the button when in power.

    • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing though, the Republicans already broke that machine by refusing to consider Obama’s appointment, with no repurcussians of any kind.

      At this point, obeying rules and norms and not doing what you can get away with in federal government to achieve your goals just makes you a sucker.

      • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly! The Court is being used as a tool to permanently constrain American politics for the next 50 years, no matter what party is in power. A year ago, there were legitimate concerns they’d gut American democracy by enabling state legislatures unchecked power to run their own elections, which would have enabled outright single party rule, mask off.

        (One could argue that large parts of the US already qualify as a single-party theocratic dictatorship, looking at you Florida)

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The GOP had the opportunity to do so in the recent past and specifically chose not to due to the destabilizing effect it would have. The idea they will do it is not consistent with history.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yep. If the goal is to de-politicize the courts, court packing makes it exponentially worse.

  • iWidji@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think in addition to the other points on this page, the thing that keeps coming to me is because I think deep down inside, Biden knows where the fault is.

    The Supreme Court’s primary role is to decipher existing laws, existing precedent, and figure out how it should be interpreted in a different era. Yes, I know due to how politicalized everything is, sometimes questionable outcomes come from the Supreme Court. But at the core, their job is to interpret existing law and precedent.

    Congress’ role is to actually pass new laws for a new era. It can be argued, they’ve done a terrible job at that because they’re busy trying to appease their base. Because they’re so divided, very little acts, with any substance, are being passed at the federal level.

    Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.

    But expanding the court also continues to give Congress a way out of making tricky compromises and laws, so they can continue fundraising on outrage, and yet do very little about things by blaming the other side.

      • iWidji@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sucks to type that because I’m all for helping young adults get higher education. But I do agree with the court, it can’t be at the expense of executive orders because then we’ll be on a crazy hamster wheel with every president. Congress needs to do their dang job and create a college bill that everyone dislikes and likes.

  • *Tagger*@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Non-american here so I could be wrong.

    Because that would lead to a cycle of each party packing the courts everytime they gain office, massively politicising the judicial system and damaging the system of checks and balances currently in place.

    • IntegrationLabGod@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is more or less the argument you’d hear from a Biden supporter against packing the court. The counterargument is that the judicial system is already massively politicized so 🤷‍♂️

      • BitSound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Politicizing is one issue, the other issue is that where do we end up after repeated court packing? We will all be supreme court justices on that blessed day.

        I don’t know that I actually agree with that but it’s at least a realistic fear.

        • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hate this hand-wringing over “b-but what if we break the rules for a good thing?” Meanwhile every time the GOP comes into power they trod on rules and norms in their crusade to bring American political and civil rights back to the 1800s.

          Like, this court wasn’t just politicized, it was hijacked when they refused to consider Merrick Garland at the end of the Obama presidency, only to ram through appointments under the Trump presidency.

          Packing the court to better align with where American society actually is, when specifically in retaliation for the GOP’S attempts to force millenials and zoomers to live in a Christian Theocracy for the next 50 years strikes me as the only way for Democrsts to actually govern successfully.

          We were dangerously close to the gutting of American democracy this past week, but we got lucky the court rejected Independent Legislature Theory.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This concept that politicization is somehow a bug and not a feature always bugs me. Was there a point in our history when we weren’t politicized, outside of a state of mobilization for war?

          Politics is simply how people make decisions outside of rigid authoritarian structures.

          Trying to eliminate politicization is trying to eliminate representative government by the populace, aka, democratic rule. The people are free to be political, that is all there really is to it.

          • Sjoerd1993@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            This really reminds me a lot about what Yanis Varoufakis (former Greek minister of finance) said abouth the EU. It’s been a while, but the gist of it was exactly what you say, that they have depoliticized the political system of the EU. Leaving a technocracy that is completely immune to debate, regardless of who is right or not.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is an apples to orangutans comparison. The USA is a country that operates under a single representative government. The EU is a multi-nation body that cooperates on economic matters.

              • CaptObvious@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not exactly. The EU is composed of independent member states with a limited overarching representative super-government. Much like the US is composed of nominally independent member states with a limited overarching federal government.

      • sh00g@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the issue is packing SCOTUS isn’t even a band aid fix to the problem. You’d have to completely overhaul the way the Court works to get a meaningful impact on the way it operates currently. I’ve seen ideas floated like expanding the judiciary and then choosing a certain number of justices randomly to preside over each case, but that is probably worse than our current system because you could end up with an even more radical Court presiding over a very impactful case.

  • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Biden can’t just expand the size of the court by himself. Congress has to give him the authority to do so.

    The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, so any court expansion plan is dead in the water. Even if the Democrats controlled the House, they only have 51 (out of 100) seats in the Senate. There are two Democratic members of the Senate who are basically Republican-lite (Manchin of WV and Sinema of AZ, who is technically an independent). Those two would kill any bill that allowed any sort of progressive change.

    If you don’t like it, then you need to do everything you can to fight for Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.

    TL;DR: Blame Congress, not Biden.

  • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    because biden can barely keep the seat warm for trump, he’s less than useless and almost as bad.