• d00phy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      And if they’re going to do that, they should add all federally elected or appointed people. If you hit the federal retirement age during your term, you’re ineligible to run again. For SCOTUS, if you hit it, you begin the process to step down while a replacement is vetted and approved.

    • praechaox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The fact that the US has to ‘pack the courts’ to get anything through shows how broken the system is.

        Not that any other country is better but still, you’d think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The skeptic in me says democrats love not being in power cause they don’t have to be responsible for what actually happens.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a beyter chance of that happening than Biden winning.

        Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.

  • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          But practically speaking there’s no way for him to enforce it without threatening violence and there’s no chance that would go over well even with other democrats

  • Scroll Responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Make every US citizen a Supreme Court justice when they turn 18. There’s nothing in the constitution that says you can’t do that. Put cases up to popular vote every year or two. Also, whatever law passed to do this would count as senate approval because who’s going to strike it down… the Supreme Court?

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There is that basketball court that’s on top of the Supreme Court…does that mean another Air Bud sequel but this time he’s a justice?

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        This meme is great but it drives me crazy. There are certainly multiple eligibility requirements to play on a school basketball team, including age and being a registered student, which would prevent a dog from qualifying.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is hilarious. I’m sure someone with more bandwidth than me can point out a dozen reasons why this is bad, but fuck if it isn’t funny and appealing.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        You mean conservatives, but I agree. Our less-fascist conservative party doesn’t like to even attempt too much progress; it would upset their owners.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          You mean conservatives

          Incrementalists believe in doing as little as possible and would do nothing if they thought they could get away with it. Conservatives believe in fascism and will implement it as quickly as we let them. Incrementalists believe in letting them.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I’m not going to throw away my vote or my delegate’s vote.

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Isn’t ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You’d have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.

            • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn’t even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state’s presidential electors are appointed. That didn’t stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren’t allowed to decide how to run their state’s elections.

              Now, you’d think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don’t pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who’s going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don’t know yet!

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes please. As someone who isn’t in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.

          And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).

          Also, prisoners should get a vote.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).

            I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.

            A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don’t exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that’s pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.

            • Omega@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don’t get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don’t realize they are part of the U.S.

  • Inferno@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hey Biden, why don’t you work on giving term limits for the house and Senate first And then work on term limits for the court.

    • Zyansheep@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Honesty kinda conflicted on representative term limits. Longer term people can be out of touch, but they also have a lot of experience and know how to collaborate to get laws passed 🤔

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think congress critters should be seated and dormed together by state, not by party. They would be less vile towards each other. Think of the pizza parties!

  • ProvableGecko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    PACK THE FUCKING COURT! You’re in that office to serve the people not the fucking system. Doesn’t matter anyway republicans are going to destroy everything they can get their hands on.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah, why would you try to actually solve a problem instead of just applying a band-aid that the next administration can rip of again (by incresing the size of the court again)?

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Every solution that works within the system would be a band-aid. The entire system is band-aids. The government set up by a group of wealthy white men almost 250 years ago for a population 130 times smaller than it is now simply does not and cannot work in today’s world.

  • Audacious@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    This would be amazing if he can do it. At least he’s promising good changes vs trump promising judgment day on day one…

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.

      So we need record turnout for that. Vote.

    • sudo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.