President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

236 points

When people bitch and moan about leftists not falling in line behind presidents, it’s because we want shit like this to happen. If Biden was polling favorably and had no detractors, I doubt we would see him attempting to tackle something like this.

This is good news though, and marks the first steps on a long journey to establishing a legitimate Supreme Court once more.

permalink
report
reply
157 points

Fucking vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-38 points

Are the fascists going to hang up their red hats if Biden wins? Is Biden going to any fucking thing to stop them in his second term? We need to start thinking about what to do about this now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

One problem at a time. The biggest problem first.

Getting people to the voting booth at all costs. Nothing else comes even close to being relevant if Trump wins.

Heck. It might be the last democratic election in American history. Seems worth voting just to say you were there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Cool, but in the mean time, VOTE. Planning to stop a fascist takeover of government is a lot easier if the fascists don’t control the Presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

drag everybody out to vote first of all. Start with the easy steps then start daydreaming about holing up in a bunker with a stockpile of guns, or whatever it is you’re suggesting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

People on the right know what they’re capable of so they try to protect themselves from the consequences while also trying to make sure that everyone else can’t do those things by reducing everyone’s rights.

People on the left can’t imagine what people on the right are capable of because they have the same reflection, they know what they themselves are capable of and imagine that others are the same, so they don’t take preventive measures before it blows up in their face.

Hence, Biden not taking advantage of the total immunity he’s got.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

This, 100%. And to pile on, any effort that doesn’t include expanding the size of the Supreme Court to 13 is too little, too late.

It’s like the DNC holding abortion rights over everyone’s heads instead of actually doing something about it for decades.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I float this from time to time: eliminate the fixed size. Open a new vacancy on the court every other year, first and third years of the presidential term. When a justice dies or retires, we remove their seat; it does not create a new vacancy. We just keep adding life-term justices on a slow, fixed schedule. I would expect the court would eventually vary in size from about 17 to 20 justices.

We would need emergency procedures to reconstitute a court if it ever falls below 7; I’d establish a line of succession from the most senior chief judge of the circuit courts, down to the most junior.

I’d also provide a limited means for a president to bypass a hostile, politically-motivated Senate. The chief judges of the circuit courts were previously confirmed by the Senate and are already in the SCOTUS line of succession established above. They are pre-confirmed. They can be elevated to a regular vacancy without additional confirmation. This gives a pool of 13 veto-proof candidates for the president to choose from if the Senate decides to play games.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

First I’ve heard of something like this but I like it. Did you come up with this idea on your own or is there a name or resource I can read more about it under?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s kinda wild to me the the supreme court of Canada has the same number of justices as you guys, and we’re a tenth of your size. We have a mandatory 75 retirement age and each region is given a block of justices, 3 for Quebec because they use civil not common law and then the rest are divided kinda sorta by population, convention has 3 from Ontario, 2 for the west (typically 1 BC, 1 for the prairies which rotates) and 1 for the Atlantic. It’s not perfect but we don’t seem to have the same issues as y’all do, during the Harper years for example a lot of the Tory policies got struck down by judges he appointed.

The one that made sense at a minimum for you was to have a justice from each circuit, the court should totally represent each region.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Do you think there is any settled law the Supreme Court wouldn’t have struck down?

These are not legal opinions that have solid reasoning. Just like people trying to get other religions recognized in public schools.

It will not fly because the people you are arguing with would rather your voice be removed from the public debate, whatever means necessary.

You can’t be clever to a fascist and win. Not only that way at least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
86 points

How is he going to get anything through the Republican house or even the Senate without a Democratic super majority?

permalink
report
reply
179 points

Proposing the changes could excite the voters enough to give him control of both chambers. Even announcing it might shift the needle for some fence sitters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
129 points
*

That’s exactly what we need right now. There are almost no undecided voters left, just unmotivated voters. We need something to energize voters who have been feeling ignored by the DNC, at best.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Seriously. His passive approach to the upcoming election has thusfar been infuriating. It’s like he’s assumed that not being Trump will be enough to win it for him, while his support dwindles. We need something to get people excited about voting for him, and wide-sweeping governmental reforms could be just that, at least among folks who’re paying attention. The “Well, both sides are corrupt, so what does it matter?” crowd.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is red meat for the base, but that’s what we need right now after weeks of feeling deflated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

This is the most annoying part about politics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

It’d be nice if he’d announce dealing with Citizens United at the same time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Stop. This is good.

You are looking at a steak dinner and complaining that there’s no ice cream sundae too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

How many times have the DNC lead people to the polls with big promises, then half way, if at all, deliver? Ive been able to vote since Reagan and its been the same thing every election. This is stuff he should have tried to tackle his first or second year. We are 15 seconds to the end of the fourth quarter and hes trying to throw a Hail Mary in the wrong direction

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The downvotes on you are infuriating. That’s just people sticking their heads in the sand. Democrats always whip out the carrot right before an election. Then let it rot afterwards.

Still waiting on that student loan debt memo, Biden. I’d really like to know why you couldn’t even try to do anything on your 2020 promise until right before the 2022 midterms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

It would involve winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress in the next election, and then nuking the Filibuster.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

keeping republicans from retaining the house and taking the senate and white house is pretty much mandatory at this point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So it’s a completely empty promise.

Democrats will never nuke the filibuster. Ever. It’s what lets them pretend their hands are tied when they kill progressive legislation they ran on but never had any intention of ever implementing.

They would rather lose Democracy forever than abandon the relic of Jim Crow they use for its intended purpose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

Theyve had a shit ton of opportunities to kill the filibuster, but dont want to lose that rotating villain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

The thing he already chose not to do. If it cant be done by Biden unilaterally at this point, it cant be done by him at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Manchin and Sinema voted against abolishing the filibuster; Biden was in favor of removing he, he just didn’t have the votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Well, he’s immune now so clearly he should just assassinate anyone who is in opposition /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

/s, or /s/s?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

wink

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

There’s this little event happening in November that can change things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Even if it doesn’t pass the house or senate, it shows that he’s trying something and isn’t just giving up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

We tried nothing and are all out of ideas

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

This is what i’m talking about. Let’s go, Joe.

permalink
report
reply
42 points

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents

“On the one hand, a president shouldn’t be allowed to order Seal Team 6 to kill someone. On the other hand, my neighbor’s dog keeps shitting in my yard.”

How is this a question?

permalink
report
reply
34 points

You need 75% of the states to ratify an amendment. Even if Biden wins the election, you think the GOP ruled state legislatures will voluntarily restrict the powers of the next GOP president? The most threatening part of Project 2025 is that it only requires the next Republican President. They’ll bet on Biden not using those powers the Supreme Court invented so that the next Republican President will.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

And they’ll win that bet. No Democrat has the guts to use those powers to fight fascism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Introduce it, win the presidency, and then force Republicans to ratify it or deal with the threat of a wildly irresponsible President.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

They’ll bet on Biden not using those powers the Supreme Court invented

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Do republicans ever pass any legislation supported by democrats anymore? What’s the last bill that was passed?

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Genocide still enjoys broad bipartisan support.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think CHIPS

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 110K

    Comments