this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
-1 points (0.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
4791 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

LOS ANGELES – President Biden on Saturday night said he expects the winner of this year’s presidential election will likely have the chance to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court – a decision he warned would be “one of the scariest parts” if his Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, is successful in his bid for a second term.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The current president could name six Supreme Court Justices today, if the Democrats were better at this.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One, they haven't had the votes since Biden became President. Two, that doesn't fix anything. If we had 6 more liberal justices today they can't just say, "Hey, let's undo the bad decisions from the last 15 years." They need to address the issues that come before them in regular fashion. If the Democrats had the votes they need to just start codifying everything we take for granted AND institute reforms (e.g. no more fucking filibuster, no stock trades for elected officials, and a SCOTUS code of ethics).

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Adding justices does fix one thing: more justices mean that for billionaires to bribe them it requires bribing a lot more of them.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s only around $100,000 to bribe justices. One billion dollars could bribe 100,000 justices at that rate.

And that rate is only that high because Clarence Thomas skews the numbers with how vast the bribes he has accepted have been.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You added a zero somewhere.

Also, it seems like justices are charging on the order of 1 million, so a billion dollars gets 1000 judges. Still plenty for them to get whatever they want.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Judges aren’t charging anywhere even close to a million dollars. You might be thinking of Clarence Thomas, who I pointed out as an outlier.

And even if I was off on my math, we aren’t getting more than 10,000 justices. Ever. Never. And even if we did, my math was based off only 1 billion dollars. A few people have MUCH more than that. So with that in mind, you’re going to need about 100,000 justices anyway just to outweigh the influence of money.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Don't worry, I've been told if we just keep electing right-wing corporate neolibs they'll eventually magically change one day and reverse their drift to the right.

No one has been able to actually articulate how that wotks, but that's the plan. Apparently.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They're not going to retire until it's a republican in office.

Only option for Democrats is expanding the courts, which neolibs will not do, because then they'd have fewer excuses for not doing their job.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pulling out that scare tactic again? Instead of spending time earning votes and creating an environment where people would want to vote for him, he resorts to the typical Boogeyman politics.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People like you still won't accept that it's your fucking fault that Trump won in 2016 in the first place, and as a direct result, completely fucked the SCOTUS over for a generation, setting us back decades.

And you're going to do it again. Because the Dems don't tuck you in at night and tell you that they love you.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Hillary and Co 100% gave us trump. Democrats ignoring leftists when we warned you Hillary cannot win. There's a better chance of you and other democrats voting for a Republican than any socialist or communist voting for either right wing POS.