this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1077 points (96.7% liked)

News

23375 readers
2831 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.

“I worry,” the president told ProPublica in interview published on Sunday. “Because I know that if the other team, the Maga Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

“Maga” is shorthand for “Make America great again”, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. Trump faces 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats but nonetheless dominates Republican polling for the nomination to face Biden in a presidential rematch next year.

In four years in the White House, Trump nominated and saw installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right. That court has delivered significant victories for conservatives, including the removal of the right to abortion and major rulings on gun control, affirmative action and other issues.

The new court term, which starts on Tuesday, could see further such rulings on matters including government environmental and financial regulation.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DandomRude 252 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (53 children)

A system that appoints supreme constitutional judges for life and without even halfway serious democratic checks and balances seems to me the perfect recipe for disaster and corruption. But hey, I'm from Europe, so what do I know... ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Yes but you fail to consider that some guys wrote on a paper like 250 years ago and we’ve decided that everything needs to be viewed through the lens of either “does this agree with an incredibly pedantic and stilted reading of this document” or “what would those historical dudes think about this” - whichever happens to be more politically expedient for you at the moment, but the second one tends to give you more flexibility.

[–] CosmicCleric 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

everything needs to be viewed through the lens of either “does this agree with an incredibly pedantic and stilted reading of this document” or “what would those historical dudes think about this”

To be fair, they did expect us to modify the constitution from generation to generation.

Ultimately the failure is ours.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

One of the more interesting things I saw (on this topic) was a historian stating that George Washington (and his contemporaries) would have been able to relate the world of Julius Cesar more than they would our modern world.

I think about that A LOT whenever I hear some idiot spout nonsense about the "vision and ideals" of the founding fathers

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DandomRude 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Yup, I see. A bit like with the Bible and other holy books then. Even here in Europe, there are many who see the wording of those as the ultimate truth. No need to adjust anything, they say. It's all good. It's god's will or whatever - if it helps their agenda, that is. Jesus, that must be frustrating.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

For better or worse, it's next to impossible to successfully modify the Constitution without significant support. It has to be ratified by about 38 States (3/4 of the State legislatures or 3/4 of the conventions called in each State). That's after either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate) propose an amendment or 2/3 of the State legislatures request one via a convention.

In a way, it's a good thing since it keeps the Constitution from being able to be changed on a whim, and it mostly keeps it from being affected by the political tug-of-war that happens every few years in the US.

It's also a bad thing, though, as it makes it very difficult to adapt to certain situations that wouldn't have happened 200+ years ago.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Alteon 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hey. You can't just use common sense when it comes to our Judicial System. That would be too logical. What next? You gonna ask that our Supreme Court Justices have Ethics Rules!?

What is this world coming to?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

It's more a symptom of the FPTP voting system

Europe has viable parties outside the two most popular in any given election cycle, so partisan loyalty is less of a threat to the application of removal proceedings or other punitive measures.

load more comments (50 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric 72 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.

If he really worries about that, and is not just scaring people to vote for him, then he has a responsibility to enlarge the court.

[–] WaxedWookie 40 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I'd argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election, but if the court can't uphold the rule of law, it should be fixed (and expansion seems like the obvious solution) or replaced.

The procedural question on this one is whether he could shrink the court to boot say... Thomas, then expand it again to replace him with someone less obviously corrupt. Republicans fail to confirm a replacement? We'll shrink the court a little more. Obviously, this won't happen, but I'm interested to know if it's possible.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shrinking it (through established legal channels) is impeachment and removal which has a high bar. Enlarging it is just passing a law, which is only hard because the senate has a policy (not a law) to effectively not pass laws without supermajorities. The latter could be done with a simple majority of politicians with a spine.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] deweydecibel 23 points 1 year ago (9 children)

How?

Are you under the assumption Joe Biden is some sort of wizard?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 37 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I am concerned about the obvious concerning things as well. Y'all should make me your leader.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Then maybe he should have packed the court with some good judges

[–] tacosplease 45 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Would have had to nuke the filibuster to make it where they could pack the court. That required yes votes from all Democratic senators (only because not a single fucking Republican would vote for it), and Manchin and Sinema refused to do it.

Nothing Biden could have done. We needed more Democrats in Senate seats. That's the game though. Republicans do their best to make us feel like voting doesn't matter, then we don't turn up - making it easier for Republicans to say the government doesn't work.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] stevedidWHAT 23 points 1 year ago

It’s just that easy ™️

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

At least they're finally starting to get a clue that "They go low, we go high" is bullshit

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Damn, did he just now notice this?

load more comments
view more: next ›