• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    And what would stop the next Republican president from packing the court further to have a conservative majority again?

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Packing the court solves nothing as it can be immediately reversed as soon as a Republican is in office.

        • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          In the case they reverse it then we are back at square 1 except we had a more progressive supreme court for a bit. I don’t see how this makes our situation worse. I guess we should also give up and never bother with executive orders since they can just be undone when the Republicans get in

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s moot, anyway, as the President doesn’t have the power to add Justice vacancies. That’s Congress’s job.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The new surpreme court could chance the laws so that is no longer possible.

          Undo the current surpreme court laws, and weaken the powers of the president before Trump gains power.

    • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I hate this reasoning. They would do it anyway! They attempted a coup. You really think they would stop because there’s some gentleman’s agreement not to add more?

      Trump and the GOP have always used these gentleman’s agreements against the Democrats when they are in power and ignored them when it was their time. Obama did the same shit when he was in office not forcing through the supreme court appointee.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        One thing that people seem to be missing is that the President cannot add SCOTUS vacancies. Only Congress can.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          And it is the President’s responsibility to nominate justices, so if the majority party just nullifies every single nominee until they can secure the presidency, we shouldn’t pretend that they aren’t obstructing the operation of government to try to seize power.

          All of this “but the government actually works this one specific way” argument isn’t much of a real argument when the issue is that bad faith actors are exploiting and weaponizing the way our government works in order to destroy it and to turn it into a dictatorship.

        • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Dems had majority in the house and senate. If they managed to get all dems to agree (which is not guaranteed) in the Senate on the appointee) then in all likelihood they would be able to increase the size with congress

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            They’d have to have a supermajority in both, which is an impossibility with current gerrymandering. Really, I think the Judicial branch needs a serious overhaul from the bottom up. 9 unelected lifetime appointees getting to decide what the law means for over 300 million people is ridiculously easy to exploit, which we’re seeing now.

            • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              They would have to do the nuclear option and crush the filibuster. I agree with you though on the lifetime appointees thing. They really should have terms and elections