• @Tak@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know this will likely upset many Dems but:

    Dems have the Senate and the Presidency and are completely within their power to pack the Supreme Court and basically alter all of the terrible rulings the Supreme Court has made lately. The problem is that many Dems do not think it is worth packing the court for women, students, or the environment. You can’t just vote your way out of this as you would literally have to pack up and move to West Virginia to vote for a Senator who would be ultimately determining this.

    The system is ultimately flawed and just voting isn’t enough.

    Addition after some research:

    It looks like the Supreme Court is set in size by law and FDR had some of the same problems so it would be likely that this would take an act of congress and not just the Senate.

    Ultimately I feel this is certainly more difficult and makes my criticism of inaction now invalid as Dems do not hold enough of a majority to pass legislation; however I do still see them as responsible for inaction when majorities have been held throughout my lifetime.

    • A) They need 50 senators willing to entertain that notion. They only have 49. B) If there were one action that I think would be most likely to kick off Civil War 2, it would be packing the court.

      • @Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        That’s a very selective way of saying the Dems aren’t responsible because Dems wont support students, the environment, or women’s rights.

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Civil War 2 is already happening, you must not be paying attention.

        It’s time to rip off the fucking band-aid and do something about it instead of letting the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and others run around terrorizing the country through wanton violence and death.

        Just because it’s not a “hot” civil war yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One side isn’t fighting back, that’s for sure.

    • Lexi Sneptaur
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      With that being said, you’re also correct that voting is NOT enough. Protesting and direct action, mutual aid, and more are all required!

    • LeZero
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Democrats wouldn’t pack the courts

      That would be uncouth, you know, decorum is after all VERY important

      I also think the Parlementarian said no

    • Lexi Sneptaur
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      They are not completely within their power to pack the court, sadly. They would have done so already if this were the case. They need 60 in the senate as well as a majority in the house and the presidency. Then they could.

      • @chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Technically, they don’t need 60. The cloture rule is what necessitates a 3/5ths supermajority to pass bills, but the cloture rule is not itself a law and so Senators can just… change it with a simple-majority vote. This has already happened twice in the recent past: once in 2013 when the Democrat-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating federal circuit judges and once more in 2017 when the Ruplican-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating supreme court justices.

        FWIW: Senators tend to really hate doing this. They call it the “nuclear option” because they normally like to get a 2/3rds supermajority agreement before changing any standing Senate rules – not to mention that the cloture rule itself is often treated as a total third-rail even among the other important Senate procedures. Combining the nuclear option and killing cloture is a massive political powderkeg waiting to explode… but maybe it should?

        • Hot Saucerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I guess full throated fascism and authoritarianism isn’t enough to consider a “nuclear option.”

          • @chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s a shared norm. Part of the deal is an implied promise that the other guys also ignore the big red button. Really, though… that ship had already sailed years ago leaving the cloture rule to hang on by the barest of threads. I’m half-convinced that the current Senate would have already done away with it if only they had a slightly more reliable voting margin.

            IMO: cloture is a dumb rule because we already have a robust system of checks in the form of a bicameral legislature plus presidential veto. The requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority in addition to these for regular everyday business is odious and something that no other large democracy does. I’m anti-gridlock on principle alone, even if I acknowledge the absolute chaos it will probably plunge the Senate into for the next dozen years or so.

      • @Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Excuse me but to my knowledge the House is not needed for appoint judges, the president nominates and the Senate votes to appoint. The Senate would simply need a majority and I’m pretty sure Dems have the majority in the Senate.

        • Lexi Sneptaur
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m fairly sure they would need the house to expand the court and add more justices.

          • @Tak@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            I think you’re probably right as it looks to be something involving the Judiciary Act of 1869 but I’ve also heard that only the senate is needed to do this even today.

            Obviously not a lawyer and ultimately it could have been done by Dems prior to the midterms so they would still be responsible for not packing the court earlier.

        • @ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.

          • @Tak@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry but I can’t find anything on there being law setting the size of the Supreme Court but only precedent.

            Would you happen to have the name of this law?

            Found it and it looks like FDR had some fights of a very similar nature.

        • @ski11erboi@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn’t been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.

          • @Tak@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Damn. If only the system gave representation per capita instead of for arbitrary reasons to get slave owners to agree. Shucks. I guess we just have to accept it and get back to work. /s obviously.

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I like how when Democrats are in power, they’re unable to do anything…

        But when Republicans are in power, they break the law at lightning speed, do things they’re not supposed to do, and nobody stops them because actually the only thing staying in their way are “rules” and “decorum” and not “laws” and yet mysteriously the Democrats are always beholden to “laws” that prevent them from doing the same. Also it seems like Democrats hands are tied at actually bringing criminal charges against Republicans because that would be “partisan.”[1] Just look at how they’ve slow-walked Trump’s prosecution and only went for it when it became clear he would never comply.

        It’s a fucking farce.


        1. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/fbi-doj-trump-investigation-january-6/index.html ↩︎

    • @minorsecond@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      Wouldn’t the Rs just do the same thing next time they have power? I get what you’re saying, but isn’t setting that precedent dangerous?

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re saying that as if the Rs won’t do the same thing anyway without prior provocation. They’ve literally already broken the law to pack the court and the Democrats sat on their hands. They denied Obama picking a justice because it was “too close to an election” when the election was like six months away, but let Trump pick one when an election was already underway.

        Take off the fucking blinders, the Republicans already do these kind of things.

        They already set the precedent.

      • @Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        Republicans are channeling full fucking fascism and you think the only thing keeping them from packing the already packed republican court is because Dems haven’t done it first?

      • riseuppikmin[he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes- the court is an illegitimate anti-democratic institution and the long-term goal should be its abolishment.

        It is the final tool of the American oligarchs to prevent needed structural change in the country.

        Anything to highlight this is a good thing. Playing ping-pong with court expansion would be great to accelerate its necessary demise.

      • OrangeSlice
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        R’s don’t care about precedent. That’s why they actually get what they want. If Democrats actually got things done, they would consistently win elections and it would be be an issue anyway.

        It’s not going to happen anyway, though.

    • @abraxas@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      Of course it upsets the Dems knowing that they’re on the only side that has to govern well and we honest.

      But the alternative is for our side to be as much of a malignant tumor on the country as the other side is.

      I’ll take this version of the Democratic party, despite the fact the Republicans are trying to destroy the US and rebuild it in their own image.

        • Hot Saucerman
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t side with oligarchs.

          Joe Manchin sure does. Nancy Pelosi sure does. Chuck Schumer sure does.

          Oopsie poopsie.

          EDIT: I triggered some Democrats by reminding them that the same hands that feed the Republicans feed the Democrats, apparently. Get over yourselves.

          In Nancy’s Own Fucking Words

      • @Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yeah 3 million fewer votes too. Just vote your way out of an oligarchy guys! The ruling class totally will let you and wont gerrymander or make constitutional amendments to give term limits to only Presidents…