Biden worries ‘extreme’ supreme court can’t be relied on to uphold rule of law
Biden worries ‘extreme’ supreme court can’t be relied on to uphold rule of law
Trump installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right, which delivered significant victories for conservatives
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
The reasons he was Obama's VP:
-
He was "the Republican Senator whisper"
-
He was supposed to be there to guide Obama
He was supposed to be the one that got that SC pick thru, but I don't remember seeing a single article or interview where he tried.
That 5 years later people forgot and started claiming Joe was "the Senate whisper" again was just fucking ridiculous. The only thing worse was when Biden implied once the Dems had a white man as president, suddenly Republicans would be super cool again.
asdfasfasf
With hindsight, given the dirty tricks the GOP played in order to secure Trump two Supreme Court appointments; the Dem’s should have just gone full radical and take the Senates refusal to put the nomination up for a vote as a tacit ‘approval’ (seeing as they didn’t technically vote him down), and sit Garland on the court.
It’s the political equivalent of not negotiating with Terrorists, akin to the Paradox of Tolerance.
It's like playing checkers with a kid who openly cheats...
If you keep following the rules, the kid will always win. If you can't make them stop cheating, your only options are to stop playing or cheat back.
This isn't a game of checkers tho. We can't just stop, and if we keep following the rules then we'll never win.
So literally the only thing we can do is play like they do.
…and do…?
asdfasfasdf
They don't give a fuck about the rules. Why should the Dems? They don't want to play by the rules, then we shouldn't hamstring ourselves with following the rules. If they want to knock over all the pieces and shit all over the board, that means we can do whatever we want, whenever we want because they threw the rule of law out the window, after wiping their ass with it.
Permanently Deleted
Change the playing field during the few weeks he had a supermajority in the house and Congress.
Campaign finance reform, voting rights guarantees, fucking anything rather than pissing away an opportunity to actually enact some meaningful changes.
Permanently Deleted
Tell me what he could’ve done
At the absolute bare minimum Biden should have understood that the issue with Republicans wasn't just a Black president...
And that "working with Republicans" wouldn't work.
Yet that's what Biden ran on in the primary, and surprise! Working with Republicans is just as impossible today.
It's not that complicated, and I highly doubt no one has ever explained that if you ask a lot...
Are you just ignoring people when they try to explain that to you?
In all fairness, saying "working with Republicans won't work" isn't specifying what the Dems could have done to have their nominee seated, which is what the commenter asked for.
asdfasfasdf
Oh, thought we were talking about Biden...
Back when Obama was in office he should have said:
If republicans won't hold a vote, I'll appoint who I want
And then just fucking did it. Republicans don't just do what they're allowed, they do everything they can.
That's why their winning. They don't spend half a term discussing if they can do something, they do it and hope it sticks.
You can say that's not how a government should work, and I'd agree. But when 2 people are playing a game without a ref, you better cheat just as hard or you'll never win. Because regardless of if we always play explicitly by the rules or not, they're gonna keep cheating.
We can piss and moan all day about how it shouldn't be like this, but the reality is that it is like this.
Oh, thought we were talking about Biden...
We are. You asserted that as Obama's VP "[Biden] was supposed to be the one that got that SC pick thru." And you've been challenged to state how you think Biden could have done that.
Your suggestion what you think Obama should have done belies a misunderstanding of the process. Obama did appoint Merrick Garland. The Constitution says the appointee has to be confirmed by the Senate before they can be seated. The Court isn't going to end-run around that and seat an unconfirmed judge.
The lesson to have learned is not to cheat harder than them, it's that we need to update the rule book to prevent this type of obstruction in the future.
There actually is a loophole that allows for appointments without approval. If the senate is in recess the appointment just happens. The Obama administration tried and failed to argue several lower positions were recess appointments when there were pro forma sessions though. It's really not possible that a justice was going to be seated without approval.
Permanently Deleted
Very true about recess appointments.
Permanently Deleted
For sure, but it is an option that exists.
Actually during recesses Republicans would leave someone behind to keep the Senate in session. They'd open and then adjourn, essentially blocking recess appointments.
asdfasfa
Lol, I know it's fake internet points, but how does this guy have a positive score for the "direct violation of the constitution" strategy.
sadfasdfasdf
Because your country is rife with people who don’t understand how their own country works.
This board is full of you saying the same thing trying to get people upset. You're not a very good troll.
Im not wrong.
No you're not wrong, you're also not a very good troll.
Are you just ignoring people when they try to explain that to you?
Well, you ignored the actual question. The question was what could Biden have done to get the Dem nomination to the Supreme Court through in the face of McConnell obstructing it.
Well, if he was there for his ability to negotiate with Republicans, he could have negotiated with Republicans...
If he was there to use his lifetime in the Senate to advise Obama, he could have explained that the Senate is just allowed to vote on SC picks. Not voting is a choice, so Obama should have called their bluff and appointed his pick.
Yes, I’m quite sure that Obama, the Constitutional scholar, wasn't aware that a simple trick like saying ‘I’ll accept your silence as consent’ would actually work and get his SC pick through. I’m absolutely confident that whoever the hell you are is right and Obama, Biden, and their entire administration overlooked this one neat trick that republicans hate. Damn you’re smart.
...
Republicans were cheating, so we just gave up?
How did that work out? Did republicans suddenly discover morals and stop cheating?
Is everything better now that we took "the high road"?
It's insane to see so many people act like they're fine with the last decade of politics and think Dems are doing a great job
A) republicans cheat within constitutional loopholes. what you bigger isn’t a loophole, it’s wholesale disregard for the constitution.
B) they’re bad so we should be bad too is a shit line of reasoning.
C) I’m not fine with the last 30 years of politics (if you think it’s only a decade that we’ve been seeing the rise of this breed of fascist right wing, you’re less informed than even I guessed from your previous comments), and the dems are doing a pretty poor job, particularly in regards to being aggressive with pushing their agenda through.
Grow up.
Grow up.
Maybe the people who need to hear that are the ones that thought 2020 Biden was going to be able to negotiate in good faith with Republicans?
Excellent and substantive reply. You’ve won me over. Well, you would have if I were 14, but unfortunately I’m not and you’re just showing your hand to how unaware you are of the political landscape and how shallow your understanding of the constitution is. People like you voting scare me. Not as much as people like my mother, but you’re certainly on the list.
Who are these people, I don't know any of them. You can't negotiate with a person who's acting in bad faith. They don't care if the government functions, they don't want it to anyway. But the option of throwing out the rule of law and doing whatever you want isn't appealing either.
You can’t negotiate with a person who’s acting in bad faith.
....
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/09/midterm-elections-biden-says-he-will-work-with-republicans.html
Somebody should tell the president...
Seriously, someone should tell him
asdfasf
I recall an exchange, I think it was between Obama and some Republican senator, but for the life of me I haven't been able to find it since I read it. It went something like "I'm not going to vote on this bill without something in exchange." "Okay, I can make sure we get some funding for some project. So, this means I can count on your vote?" "Oh, no, I would never vote for that."
There is no negotiating. You try to meet them half way, and they'll take a step back. Every time.
So....
Why did Biden, the party, and the media all act like Biden was the only one who could negotiate with Republicans in 2020?
Were all those people just too stupid to know better? Or were they all lying to voters?
asdfasdf
Too bad you can't scroll down and see I've addressed that multiple times....
asdfasdf
I just realized I already replied to you multiple times... No matter what you just say "that's not what I meant" and never clarify what you meant.
I think the reason "no one has explained it to you" is the same reason my dog doesn't know anything about nuclear physics. The smartest experts in the world can spend his whole life explaining it.
But my dog is never going to get it. Thinking that means there's no explanation for nuclear physics...
Dude. Your answers are like complaining about our lack of faster than light travel. It's actually impossible and yelling about it not happening is not an actual solution.
asdfasdfsdf
Obama could have easily used row v wade and plenty of others to go to the opposing senators constituencies and gotten their support to flip the senators votes. Even in red states a majority support abortion.
He could have rallied his movement that got him elected that he threw in the trash mere seconds after being elected. He could have told them to march to make this happen. He sat back and did nothing because he is rich and wanted the supreme court to defend his private property over everything else.
Do you honestly think what you’re saying in this thread is intelligent? Admit you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and log off for the day, bud.
Love your projection. Only the unintelligent would defend Obama after the drone campaigns in the middle east and affordable care act written by Newt Gingrich
asdfasfasdfasdf
I do understand simple politics unlike yourself. Obama made no effort to mobilize his massive base that got him elected to put pressure on those senators. It's not your fault, you just are unaware of the power a president has. That's okay. You've got a lot to learn. You won't learn anything acting like a child on the internet though.
What the fuck are you babbling about now? I have not mentioned any politicians in this thread. You need to chill out and go for a walk.
Very hypocritical considering your previous comment.
-