this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
16 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
 

President Biden said he won’t expand the Supreme Court because doing so would “politicize” the court in an unhealthy way. But it’s a political institution by its nature — and a disturbingly undemocratic one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wouldn't it just turn into every new president expanding the court until it benefits them? What's the limit? Honestly asking IDK.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We should probably just abolish the court as it has no functional value anyways.

The fact is, Republicans effectively stole to supreme Court seats based on legislative tactics. This is basically unprecedented.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

not an american, so i have no real… uh… i was gonna say skin in the game but tbh the whole western world has skin in the game… regardless:

if that were to happen i’d say it’d get to a point where the number of justices deadlocks the court, and either makes it entirely symbolic or there’s a bipartisan agreement that something needs to be fixed and that’s how you get systemic change

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I actually think expanding the Supreme Court should be a long-term project: one new seat per presidential term, until the court has a total of 15 seats in 2044 (15 being a number I pulled out of my ass, just seems like a good size to me). That's a slow enough rollout that it can't be accused of one party stuffing the court, and it's fair because it gives several future presidents a say. Is that sufficiently 'non-politicized'?

Not that this kind of compromise would be acceptable to the other side anyway, they'll call foul no matter what because they're winning right now and won't accept anything that could potentially challenge that.