48
Trump Threatens to Appoint ‘Maybe Even Nine’ Supreme Court Justices if Elected
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
we shouldve been packing the court already. but nope democrats dont wanna rock the boat. something about when they go low we get high. no sorry, when they go low kick em in the fucking mouth.
Yeah, with what majority? There are only 47 Democrats and 2 independents who are interested in any politics left of center. Manchin, techincally a Democrat, will only vote for his personal, center-right beliefs, and Sinema, the only remaining independent has shown she's in it solely for personal financial gain. There was no time in which there were enough Democrats, excepting the two aforementioned posers, to add seats to the court or confirm any justice without some money changing hands. If it weren't about power or money we could have had 52 states (DC and PR) and at least 3 more truly democratic senators (considering the outside chance of a 50/50 split in PR). But that was impossible because it would have reduced the power of Manchin and Sinema, and that's the only reason for them to exist.
Like how the Dems won't get rid of the filibuster, while the Reps got rid of it to push through the judicial nominees. Or how the Dems did absolutely nothing about the Rep Senate ignoring Obamas nominee and then rushing through their own at the last minute to stack SCOTUS.
Dems just can't admit that they need to play on the Reps level because the other team openly cheating while you take the high ground just tolerating the intolerant.
There's never been a filibuster in the House.
It didn't originally exist in the Senate either, but the worse Vice President we ever had, decided that the Senate had too many rules and got rid of most of them. One of those original rules allowed any senator to call for a vote, even when someone was on the floor speaking.
This rule, called the previous question for some reason, still exists in the House, along with the Hour Rule which limits the time a Representative can spend holding the floor.
So we already have the framework to end the filibuster, but conservatives on both sides of the aisle like it because it means that they can thwart progress.
Of course, when it gets in the way, Republicans quickly carve out an exception for themselves, like they did with Judicial appointments.
The Senate is a useless and bad institution anyway. It's the US House of Lords, where land is being given rights to vote over people.
If we're swinging magic wands anyway, just get rid of it and give its duties to the House. Or maybe return it to being a governor-appointed advisory board that only has proforma powers over legislation that the House can override.
At a minimum, make it so Senators can cast as many votes as they have constituents. Do the same thing for reps in the House.