Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.

“I worry,” the president told ProPublica in interview published on Sunday. “Because I know that if the other team, the Maga Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

“Maga” is shorthand for “Make America great again”, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. Trump faces 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats but nonetheless dominates Republican polling for the nomination to face Biden in a presidential rematch next year.

In four years in the White House, Trump nominated and saw installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right. That court has delivered significant victories for conservatives, including the removal of the right to abortion and major rulings on gun control, affirmative action and other issues.

The new court term, which starts on Tuesday, could see further such rulings on matters including government environmental and financial regulation.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. It’s not clear that’s constitutionally possible and guess who gets to decide whether or not it is.
      2. Even if it were that’s not up to the President.

      Civics education in this country is fucking pathetic.

      • subignition@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s by design. Wouldn’t want people doing something crazy like paying attention and trying to do something about the institutional cruelty. 🤔

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Civics education in this country is fucking pathetic.

        I agree with you but there’s no reason to believe that the people proposing blatantly unconstitutional courses of action are American. In fact there’s no good reason to believe they’re even arguing for this in good faith. There’s a lot of a bad actors on the internet getting paid by various nation states to foment problems.

        I tend to put commenters who won’t accept that their plan is outside the bounds of the law into that second category. They KNOW what they’re saying would cause serious problems if it was done but they keep repeating it. They act just like the Russian led MAGAts with the sole difference that they’re pretending to work for Team Blue.

        • Cyborganism
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh of course! Sure!

          I’m not American and I don’t know how your whole complicated political system works. So if I ask if something can be done a certain way and it’s not how it actually works in your system I simply MUST be a foreign bad actor trying to influence Americans to vote for Putin as international world overlord.

          /S

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve been instructed over and over and over in this very topic how our system works and you ignore to continue pushing a plan that would have devastating and immediate consequences.

            If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck odds are good that it’s a duck.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              pushing a plan that would have devastating and immediate consequences.

              It’s some peak white moderation to think that there aren’t already devastating and immediate consequences to simply passively accepting fascism to preserve “order”. You’ll croak about civics education while people are losing their lives due to a corrupt and illegitimate court being giving cart blanche to rewrite law.

            • Cyborganism
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right…

              Some of ya’ll need to go back to Reddit with that kind of attitude.

      • Cyborganism
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m Canadian… not everyone on the internet is American.

        I just thought the president had the power to sign an executive order or some shit like Trump did for a bunch of things.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You still have zero excuse. If you think the head of state of any liberal democracy can change the judicial system by fiat you don’t have the understanding nor mental horsepower to be reading about this instead of an introduction to government textbook.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s because it’s much easier to roadblock things than implement them.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The GOP got their perjurous Justices confirmed, their tax cuts passed, their book bans, and the end of Toe V Wade. Seems like they are implementing just fine.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The book bans are happening at state level, not federal. Other than that, it’s all been tearing down what’s existing

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not really implementing… You left out every bit of context.

              • They waited and said no, we won’t confirm Garland and then got the majority and pushed through a justice during an election.

              • They’re ignoring laws and passing their own book bans that their now regressive Supreme Court is cool with.

              • And the end of Roe v Wade was accomplished at least in part but that same saying no and waiting.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a power that belongs to any branch except through a constitutional amendment. The Constitution says life during good behavior.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may want to actually read the Constitution one day. It makes no mention of “life”. Here’s the text of Article III, Section 1:

        The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you have any basis in fact for that assertion? If it’s not controlled by the constitution than Congress can set a limit.

          • Cyborganism
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right? Fucking hell…

            If I’m so ignorant of the American democratic system, when I’m not even American myself and was never really educated on the system, would it bother people to explain to me why what I ask is not possible instead of throwing insults?

            The comments in this thread are appalling.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              While technically true it’s irrelevant as the constitution does not specify any term limits. So yeah - reddit-tier nit-picking over a detail while missing the entire point.

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Technically true? Well, what the other person said was entirely false. It’s not nitpicking when someone says that the constitution says justices have lifetime appointments and it actually doesn’t say that.

                It becomes relevant very quickly when you want to change the system. An act of Congress requires a majority vote and signature by the president, fairly simple. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both chambers and ratification by 3/4 of the states (or a convention by the states).

                • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Congress cannot impose SCOTUS term limits by statute. For one, Congress lacks enumerated authority to regulate SCOTUS. For another, even if they did, SCOTUS interprets the constitution to mean life terms, which means any simple statute Congress passes is reviewed… by SCOTUS… as facially unconstitutional.

                  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The Constitution is silent as to the number of justices, Congress has determined how many supreme Court justices there will be. That number has been changed over time by Congress. Term limits are no different.

                    If the supreme Court wants to go that route, it is already been established that Congress can expand the number of justices. Congress can simply expand the number of justices, seat those justices, and then change the terms for Supreme Court justices with the new members voting in favor of the constitutionality of that change.

                    Even impeaching every Supreme Court Justice would be quicker and easier than the constitutional amendment. Congress unquestionably has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.

      • Cyborganism
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Take a chill pill. I’m not American. I don’t know everything about your system.

        • foksmash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re good. Sadly, if you don’t repeat the approved narrative you are treated with hostility.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You would do well to indicate in your posts that you know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no business discussing it then. It sounds more like a suggestion than a question.

          • Cyborganism
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Man, fuck off. What are you? The boss of the internet?

              • Cyborganism
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No you’re “the guy who’s being a jerk and telling people what they can and cannot say or ask on the internet”.

      • Cyborganism
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I assumed that he could propose a bill or something. And what about executive orders? How does that work? I saw Donald Trump sign some stuff into law while he was in office.

        Sorry, not American. I don’t fully understand how your system works.

        • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          He can suggest a bill, but he can’t submit it himself, someone in the House of Representatives would have to do it for him.
          And as far as executive orders go they can be overturned by Congress or the next sitting president, and there are limitations as to what can and cannot be done via executive order.

          • Cyborganism
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re the only person so far that hasn’t freaked out and have me an explanation. Thank you!