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.

  • flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s doing one of the only things he can do: using his soapbox to draw attention to the issue.

    The only real fix to this would be for Democrats to hold a majority in the house, a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate (or remove the filibuster with a simple majority), and the presidency.

    The last time this was possible was a brief 7-month period from 2009-2010. Prior to that… 1978.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He could use his soapbox to promote remedies to the situation, instead of finally acknowledging that this is an unmitigated disaster.

      Conservatives don’t wait for a supermajority to effect the change they want. You act like Democrats want to build consensus before doing anything, but Biden doesn’t even seem to have consensus on what he wants to do.

      What would Biden do with an absolute majority? How would he fix things? That’s what he should be talking about, what he should be promoting.

      • flossdaily@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pointing out the problem puts it into play for public debate, and there isn’t anything Republicans can say about the issue that doesn’t make them look bad (because on this issue they are unquestionably the villains).

        Getting into details about the solution, however, offers the Republicans a line of attack and a way to muddy the waters. (“They want to pack the court!”).

        Nothing is gained by having Biden get into the nitty-gritty, but something is lost.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Conservatives don’t wait for a supermajority to effect the change they want.

        They don’t need a supermajority. All* they want to do (cut taxes and budgets via reconciliation and stack the courts*) is possible with a simple majority.

        * Supreme Court does still need 60 votes to end debate and actually vote on confirming

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago
          • Supreme Court does still need 60 votes to end debate and actually vote on confirming

          I thought McConnell actually ended that for Supreme Court nominations with his rule set, and that’s how he was able to stuff acb on the court.

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t spend long looking for a source and what I found just said it goes from committee to floor debate then to a vote, and I assumed anything going to the floor for debate needed a cloture vote to end debate. But looking up the cloture vote for ACB does say it ways 51 to 48, so yeah looks like I was wrong.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Republican president from 1980-1992. And in 1993-1995 we hadn’t yet seen this insanity of obstruction for the sake of power, so getting rid of the fillibuster at that time would have seemed like an unprompted power grab.

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

        I’m fairly certain that Democrats didn’t hold all branches of government with a majority in both houses for a full eight years.