• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        17
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        When there’s another Republican president, this will be the least of our worries. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have captured the courts. There are no judicial means to enact this. If it is challenged in court, it will lose. Waiting for Congress to act is hopium. Do it, then apologize for having to do the right thing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You seem confused on what an executive order is (or you’re not confused and are just saying this in bad faith). It’s not just the president randomly saying I order this to happen like some kind of dictator. It’s the executive laying out his/her interpretation of specifics on how a law should be implemented, a law already passed by congress. So unless congress has passed a law already, saying congress gives the executive the power to increase the size of the court on a whim, or decide to impose term limits on a whim (and they most certainly have not), then the power still rests with congress. Setting up and regulating the courts is a job expressly delegated to congress in the constitution. An executive order is meaningless here. What law would it derive its authority from? A congressional law might not even be enough for all of this, that’s why part of the plan talks about a constitutional amendment.

      And “No words” ?! How on earth are we supposed to build a concensus to do something, if in your opinion no one is allowed to even talk about it or express their support until it’s already happened? You make no sense. The sitting president endorsing supreme court reform is a huge step. And Harris is endorsing it too. Now we just need enough members of congress to get on board, and that’s how it could happen. Not talking about it because it can’t happen this second doesn’t make it any more likely to happen. Comments like yours if anything make it less likely, and discourage support for the people trying to actually get it done.

      I’m tired of all these nonsensical, “why doesn’t Biden just become dictator right now” comments. We’re voting against Trump because we don’t want a dictator.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        ”Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them… They [the assembly] should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

        Thomas Jefferson

        I understand the limits of Executive Orders, but the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. How can you reel in a branch of government that decides which laws will be enforced? Congress is feckless and stilted and captured by interests.

        Pretending that America can litigate itself away from fascism is foolish. Republicans and the conservatives will not give up power willingly. It has to be taken.

        If the Democrats, who claim to want to uphold the conventions of democracy, will not act dictatorially, the Republicans, with the help of the Supreme Court, surely will.

        I know what I am saying seems extreme, because it is. We are experiencing turmoil because of unchecked power. If the Democrats do not ACT the republic will be lost, if it is not already too late.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          I fundamentally disagree. I think if you invoke authoritarianism to supposedly prevent it, you’ve already lost. I don’t think that’s the case yet though. I still have hope. Our country has been much less democratic than this before and managed to improve, it can happen again.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I mean this very practically, if Biden actually began acting extra judicially like you said, he’d just shatter norms faster, make all the false things Republicans say about democrats wanting to destroy democracy true, and lead to a landslide election victory for republicans in the fall (unless Biden went truly authoritarian and stopped the fall elections too). And it’d be obvious what would happen from there. I’m sorry but you just can’t fight fascism with fascism. It doesn’t work. You just get more fascism.

    • Melllvar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      What do you suppose the president has the power to do in this case?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        This.

        The Supreme Court dominates our elected branches of government because our political leaders lack the strength to do otherwise. We deserve no better than the yoke the court has fashioned for us, because we are the ones putting it on. source.

        • Melllvar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          That doesn’t seem like a reasonable or well thought-out idea.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m open to other ideas. But, we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas won’t cut it with fascism looming. Act in a utilitarian manner, and sort out the deficiencies later.

            Why not? As an originalist constitutionalists, conservatives should laud a president who reduces the court back to its Constitutionally mandated 6 justices.

            • Melllvar
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              Point of order: the Constitution doesn’t set the number of justices, it gives that power to Congress.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                44 months ago

                Somehow the writers of that Wikipedia article managed to fit that information into the first sentence.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      It sets a reasonable bar for discussion, and makes a great case of you read it. Maybe that last part is the problem…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        I read it. I am not looking forward to this proposal dying in a House of Representatives committee though; which it will.