this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35696 readers
1334 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
7
ELI5 - So why exactly doesnt Biden expand the courts? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Dick_Justice@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iwidji@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think in addition to the other points on this page, the thing that keeps coming to me is because I think deep down inside, Biden knows where the fault is.

The Supreme Court's primary role is to decipher existing laws, existing precedent, and figure out how it should be interpreted in a different era. Yes, I know due to how politicalized everything is, sometimes questionable outcomes come from the Supreme Court. But at the core, their job is to interpret existing law and precedent.

Congress' role is to actually pass new laws for a new era. It can be argued, they've done a terrible job at that because they're busy trying to appease their base. Because they're so divided, very little acts, with any substance, are being passed at the federal level.

Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.

But expanding the court also continues to give Congress a way out of making tricky compromises and laws, so they can continue fundraising on outrage, and yet do very little about things by blaming the other side.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the sort of thoughtful comment that is making Lemmy so valuable. Thank you.

[–] iwidji@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It sucks to type that because I’m all for helping young adults get higher education. But I do agree with the court, it can’t be at the expense of executive orders because then we’ll be on a crazy hamster wheel with every president. Congress needs to do their dang job and create a college bill that everyone dislikes and likes.

[–] Tagger@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Non-american here so I could be wrong.

Because that would lead to a cycle of each party packing the courts everytime they gain office, massively politicising the judicial system and damaging the system of checks and balances currently in place.

[–] IntegrationLabGod@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is more or less the argument you'd hear from a Biden supporter against packing the court. The counterargument is that the judicial system is already massively politicized so 🤷‍♂️

[–] BitSound@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Politicizing is one issue, the other issue is that where do we end up after repeated court packing? We will all be supreme court justices on that blessed day.

I don't know that I actually agree with that but it's at least a realistic fear.

[–] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I hate this hand-wringing over "b-but what if we break the rules for a good thing?" Meanwhile every time the GOP comes into power they trod on rules and norms in their crusade to bring American political and civil rights back to the 1800s.

Like, this court wasn't just politicized, it was hijacked when they refused to consider Merrick Garland at the end of the Obama presidency, only to ram through appointments under the Trump presidency.

Packing the court to better align with where American society actually is, when specifically in retaliation for the GOP'S attempts to force millenials and zoomers to live in a Christian Theocracy for the next 50 years strikes me as the only way for Democrsts to actually govern successfully.

We were dangerously close to the gutting of American democracy this past week, but we got lucky the court rejected Independent Legislature Theory.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This concept that politicization is somehow a bug and not a feature always bugs me. Was there a point in our history when we weren't politicized, outside of a state of mobilization for war?

Politics is simply how people make decisions outside of rigid authoritarian structures.

Trying to eliminate politicization is trying to eliminate representative government by the populace, aka, democratic rule. The people are free to be political, that is all there really is to it.

[–] sh00g@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think the issue is packing SCOTUS isn't even a band aid fix to the problem. You'd have to completely overhaul the way the Court works to get a meaningful impact on the way it operates currently. I've seen ideas floated like expanding the judiciary and then choosing a certain number of justices randomly to preside over each case, but that is probably worse than our current system because you could end up with an even more radical Court presiding over a very impactful case.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

imagine creating a button that makes you win, but makes the process far more complicated.

now imagine, once you're out of power the other guy can also push the button.

once pressed, neither side will ever stop pushing the button when in power.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep. If the goal is to de-politicize the courts, court packing makes it exponentially worse.

[–] AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's the thing though, the Republicans already broke that machine by refusing to consider Obama's appointment, with no repurcussians of any kind.

At this point, obeying rules and norms and not doing what you can get away with in federal government to achieve your goals just makes you a sucker.

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly! The Court is being used as a tool to permanently constrain American politics for the next 50 years, no matter what party is in power. A year ago, there were legitimate concerns they'd gut American democracy by enabling state legislatures unchecked power to run their own elections, which would have enabled outright single party rule, mask off.

(One could argue that large parts of the US already qualify as a single-party theocratic dictatorship, looking at you Florida)

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, the GOP will start stacking once they lose the Supreme Court and win the presidency. It’s not if, but when.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The GOP had the opportunity to do so in the recent past and specifically chose not to due to the destabilizing effect it would have. The idea they will do it is not consistent with history.

[–] serpentdrago@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No they didn't do it cause they didn't need to

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Biden can’t just expand the size of the court by himself. Congress has to give him the authority to do so.

The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, so any court expansion plan is dead in the water. Even if the Democrats controlled the House, they only have 51 (out of 100) seats in the Senate. There are two Democratic members of the Senate who are basically Republican-lite (Manchin of WV and Sinema of AZ, who is technically an independent). Those two would kill any bill that allowed any sort of progressive change.

If you don’t like it, then you need to do everything you can to fight for Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.

TL;DR: Blame Congress, not Biden.

[–] kttnpunk@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

because biden can barely keep the seat warm for trump, he's less than useless and almost as bad.