this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
133 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2065 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 75 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Easiest answer.

Pack the court. It's perfectly legal. No laws or precedent against it. Just a lack of political will and spine.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Kamala could do it. I'm not saying she would, but she's not biden, and he definitely wasn't gonna do it. We can hope.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago

* Only if dems keep the senate, though. This is why down ballot races matter a lot

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden is such a wuss when it comes to stuff like precedents

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Joe should do it after the votes are counted in November, irrespective of who wins. If its a Trump win, a packed court gives some stability and a check on Trump. If its a Harris win, then there's no fallout for Harris making the call, and she has 4 years of a stable and sane Supreme Court.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Congress would have to pass a bill to pack the court, which the President would sign. The new Congress is seated early, though. If Democrats got their majorities they can send Joe a bill right away in the 2 weeks overlap.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

This is a good point

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That only solves the problem future decisions. Previous decisions would have to go back through the whole court system to hope to get reversed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

The current court has shown pretty clear distain for stare decisis and allowing things to skip the other courts when politically expedient. Plenty of precedent now established to undo the damage.