2y ago

Biden worries ‘extreme’ supreme court can’t be relied on to uphold rule of law

www.theguardian.com

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.

372 comments

A system that appoints supreme constitutional judges for life and without even halfway serious democratic checks and balances seems to me the perfect recipe for disaster and corruption. But hey, I'm from Europe, so what do I know... ¯(ツ)_/¯
- Yes but you fail to consider that some guys wrote on a paper like 250 years ago and we’ve decided that everything needs to be viewed through the lens of either “does this agree with an incredibly pedantic and stilted reading of this document” or “what would those historical dudes think about this” - whichever happens to be more politically expedient for you at the moment, but the second one tends to give you more flexibility.
  
  everything needs to be viewed through the lens of either “does this agree with an incredibly pedantic and stilted reading of this document” or “what would those historical dudes think about this”
  To be fair, they did expect us to modify the constitution from generation to generation.
  Ultimately the failure is ours.
  
  One of the more interesting things I saw (on this topic) was a historian stating that George Washington (and his contemporaries) would have been able to relate the world of Julius Cesar more than they would our modern world.
  I think about that A LOT whenever I hear some idiot spout nonsense about the "vision and ideals" of the founding fathers
  
  Yup, I see. A bit like with the Bible and other holy books then. Even here in Europe, there are many who see the wording of those as the ultimate truth. No need to adjust anything, they say. It's all good. It's god's will or whatever - if it helps their agenda, that is. Jesus, that must be frustrating.
  
  For better or worse, it's next to impossible to successfully modify the Constitution without significant support. It has to be ratified by about 38 States (3/4 of the State legislatures or 3/4 of the conventions called in each State). That's after either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress propose an amendment or 2/3 of the State legislatures request one via a convention.
  In a way, it's a good thing since it keeps the Constitution from being able to be changed on a whim, and it mostly keeps it from being affected by the political tug-of-war that happens every few years in the US.
  It's also a bad thing, though, as it makes it very difficult to adapt to certain situations that wouldn't have happened 200+ years ago.
  
  Not anymore. They are just making shit up now. The check is congress impeaching them. That will not happen if enough people demand it.
  It'll never happen as long as republicans control either half of congress. People have been sounding the alarm on their power grabs for decades and only now are some people starting to listen.
  I expect the American experiment to fail in my lifetime.
- Hey. You can't just use common sense when it comes to our Judicial System. That would be too logical. What next? You gonna ask that our Supreme Court Justices have Ethics Rules!?
  What is this world coming to?
  
  Yes, sorry, that would be too much to ask. I'll show myself out.
  
  not just a series of Ethics Rules, but ones that were actually followed...
- It's more a symptom of the FPTP voting system
  Europe has viable parties outside the two most popular in any given election cycle, so partisan loyalty is less of a threat to the application of removal proceedings or other punitive measures.
- Article V of the the Constitution.
  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/#
  Amending the Constitution was intended to be much more usable, but over half the country doesn't vote.
  
  I can see how 9 out of 13 colonies (or equivalent votes in congress) might be more plausible than 34/50 states or 357/535 congresspeople (house + senate) considering the state of politics today.
  
  on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
  Always wondered what the legal definition of "several" was, as it applies to that clause.
- Yeah, the drafters of our constitution really fucked up in that regard.
  I'd attempt to solve the problem by creating an independent judicial review board entirely separate from the US govt. similar to other "professional" professions. Let these judges go up for review every 5 years and if they are found to be in breach of conduct, remove them from the bench.
  Also, rework how they get to the bench in the first place. Of course the SC is going to be politically motivated. They only get their seats because one of the two big parties literally puts them there. Impartiality is really hard to claim when you owe your entire existence as a SC judge to a giant money machine.
  
  Lifetime appointments mean they don't owe anyone shit. They have nothing to gain by being loyal to the party that appointed them. There are better ways to accomplish the same thing, but it's at least one facet of how the court works that seems to do what it's supposed to.
  
  The whole point of a lifetime appointment is that they can abandon all political concerns once they're in the SCOTUS - so they don't have to be political. And I've seen that happen - while they obviously stay conservative or progressive, they tend to drift away from an alignment with the parties - with exceptions, obviously.
  But, as with all other branches of the US government, it's becoming clear that we've exited the era of being able to trust our leadership to support the Constitution and represent the people.
  (For me, it wasn't even Trump that snapped me out of that mindset. It was when they were talking about outlawing congressional insider trading. One of the Republicans said, out loud and in public, that the notion of prohibiting congressional sick trading was off the table, because it was a core part of the job. He said something like, "half of us wouldn't be here" - as though that was a bad thing.)
  
  I don't necessarily think the founders fucked up. It's important that the court be free from political influence when deciding cases so I think they had the right idea. I'm not necessarily opposed to lifetime appointments. Where I think there's a lot of room for improvement is the nomination and confirmation process. It's entirely political, contentious, and has produced a few lousy justices in recent years.
  This idea of one party only appointing conservatives and the other only appointing liberals and both sides hating the other's appointments is what's fucked up. What could be interesting is a bipartisan Congressional nominating committee that produces candidates that are at least palatable to both sides. Let's say there's a 2/3 majority requirement for the committee to nominate someone. They could produce a list of several candidates and the president nominates one of them. Basically take this process away from partisan NGOs and give it to a bipartisan group of elected representatives.
  
  Yeah, the drafters of our constitution really fucked up in that regard.
  The thing is, the drafters of the constitution didnt mean for the supreme Court to be as powerful as it is today. There is nothing in the constitution that even grants them the power of judicial review. They just interpreted that they inherently had that power, and we've gone along with it for the last hundred years.
  According to the drafters, separating the judicial branch from the executive was a way to inhibit veto power and to prevent the executive from reshaping laws that have been passed by Congress. There only other function was to handle cases between two states, and to oversee an impeachment trial in the Senate.
  
  They probably never expected anyone in government to be so openly corrupt and incorrigible. At the time they wrote the declaration they probably viewed democracy like the roman Republic did and thought the people would categorically reject anyone willfully stealing their rights and freedoms for their own political or personal gain. Of course they couldn't foresee a political party so openly hypocritical that they would literally lie on mass to a public brainwashed by unchecked "news" publications that only regurgitate what they want to hear. Democracy is f*cked, blame the murdochs.
  
  It's really a shame that so many seem to be clinging to a constitution that is close to 250 years old. You would think that some things would need to be updated over that period of time, but as I said, I'm from Europe...
Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.
If he really worries about that, and is not just scaring people to vote for him, then he has a responsibility to enlarge the court.
- I'd argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election, but if the court can't uphold the rule of law, it should be fixed (and expansion seems like the obvious solution) or replaced.
  The procedural question on this one is whether he could shrink the court to boot say... Thomas, then expand it again to replace him with someone less obviously corrupt. Republicans fail to confirm a replacement? We'll shrink the court a little more. Obviously, this won't happen, but I'm interested to know if it's possible.
  
  Shrinking it (through established legal channels) is impeachment and removal which has a high bar. Enlarging it is just passing a law, which is only hard because the senate has a policy (not a law) to effectively not pass laws without supermajorities. The latter could be done with a simple majority of politicians with a spine.
  
  I’d argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election
  Honestly I feel like that needed a civil war level response, that really should not have been allowed/normalized, regardless of which party initiated the block.
  whether he could shrink the court to boot say… Thomas, then expand it again to replace him
  I couldn't agree to that, that's way too manipulative and dishonors the previous selections from previous presidents.
  I would expect him to just expand the court by two seats, if he was going to try to do something along these lines.
  
  My preference would be to simply enlarge the court by a few seats, nominate some additional candidates that exceed the number of available seats by 2 or 3, and then hold some sort of Survivor-like competition to see who captures the seats. I would also accept a Hunger Games style competition for this first new court session.
- How?
  Are you under the assumption Joe Biden is some sort of wizard?
  
  The supreme court is supposed to be based on certain numbers, when those numbers increased the SC could have been increased, but hasn't been.
  Basically all it would take is for the president to decide "hey this court is supposed to be bigger, because the rules it wrote for itself say so" and sign a few things and boom. Increased court size.
- Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?
  
  To correct for the explicitly political gain one team is solely interested in for their own authoritarian redefinition of established precedent that also had their nominees lie their way into their SC positions at the expense of the Constitution and our freedoms. That's the argument.
I am concerned about the obvious concerning things as well. Y'all should make me your leader.
- Can you figure out how to get off a stage though...
  
  I love completely unaware comments like this. President stable genius wasn't really all that stable nor all that much of a genius. Dude bragged about memorizing 5 words in a TV interview.
  If you're willing to mention one as a disqualifying factor, you should really take a long hard look at the other candidate through the same lens.
Then maybe he should have packed the court with some good judges
- Would have had to nuke the filibuster to make it where they could pack the court. That required yes votes from all Democratic senators (only because not a single fucking Republican would vote for it), and Manchin and Sinema refused to do it.
  Nothing Biden could have done. We needed more Democrats in Senate seats. That's the game though. Republicans do their best to make us feel like voting doesn't matter, then we don't turn up - making it easier for Republicans to say the government doesn't work.
  
  Nothing Biden could have done.
  He could have attacked them. Called on their constituents to protest outside their offices. Politics is more than just filing papers and casting votes.
- It’s just that easy ™️
- I don't think he's exactly even capable of doing so. SCOTUS judges have to retire or die, and then vacant seats have to get confirmed by the Senate, and no self-respecting Republican Supreme Court justice would die while in office. Expanding the number of justices is also extremely unlikely to happen, and also, relevantly, not really in Joe's hands.
  
  The notable historical threat to pack the courts previously (which succeeded in moderating the court without packing) was done by a president. They don't have unilateral authority, but they are the leader of the party. Stuff doesn't happen unless leaders lead.
  
  and also, relevantly, not really in Joe’s hands.
  That didn't stop FDR from trying and indirectly succeeding.
At least they're finally starting to get a clue that "They go low, we go high" is bullshit
Damn, did he just now notice this?
To me, as a non-American, the most baffling thing is that everyone in the States just assumes, and accepts, that these appointed justices are going to rule according to some political bias.
That's not the way it works in the rest of the free world. Judges are, by definition, trusted to be impartial interpreters of the law/constitution. That's their role.
I live in Canada, and I'm vaguely familiar with some of the names of our Supreme Court justices, but I certainly don't know their political leanings, nor do I care. Nor does any Canadian I know. That's the way it's supposed to be.
So as far as I can see, the problem isn't that SCOTUS is stacked with Republicans, nor that it can be. The problem is that everyone seems to assume that this is the way it should be.
- No, we don't. Along with Citizens United, EVERY American with a brain and open eyes is aware these are the absolute most important problems, and they lead to endgame checkmate authoritarianism.
  
  And yet I never see any mention of this anywhere. Even here, it seems that Biden is more concerned about whether the court can administer justice because it is so much out of balance. No mention, though, that the "balance" shouldn't even be a factor.
  SCOTUS justices are appointed for life because it's supposed to put them above political considerations. No politician can influence them by threatening removal. Yet, there you are, SCOTUS is just as political as the other two branches.
- First of all, the Overton Window in America is skewed heavily right. So our centrist Democratic leaders are center right, our Republicans are what most countries would call regressive, extremist, authoritarian right wing, or even fascists.
  See, the problem is rightwing extremism has been on a campaign since the civil rights era to take control of the country and undo the progress made since the 1960s.
  They installed right wing media. They cut education and tampered with curricula. They gerrymandered. They instituted voter suppression. Their strategy culminated in the Federalist Society influencing the selection of Gorsuch and installation of right wing judges during the Trump administration.
  The thing you have to know if you ever want to try and stop extremist, authoritarian, right wing regressives is that they do not hold the same ideals and morals as you and I. They do not play from the same playbook or follow the same rulebook.
  They believe that "might makes right," that any ends justify the means, that rules are enacted to protect them and their in group and punish their selected out group. They believe in many cases that their cause is justified by God.
  And so any justice who adheres to such zealous principles will see no issue with finding a way to rule in the favor of their side. They may even go so far as to rule with weak or minimal justification. They will be a lot less likely to rule in an unbiased fashion.
  My current opinion is that, so far, we have only seen rulings that fall into the "finding a way" category.
  I think these justices will incrementally push the envelope on what they can get away with over the upcoming decades.
  
  “I think these justices will incrementally push the envelope on what they can get away with over the upcoming decades.”
  I feel like we have already turned the corner of openly ruling along party lines as well as unrepentant corruption.
  
  I doubt the Republican justices stay alive for much longer with the growing realization that political assassinations easily solve issues with the supreme court. It's talked in hush tones a lot online because people act as if talking about the thing means you're inviting it.
  Tbh I'm genuinely surprised suicidal people on the left haven't already taken one out. I was betting on it to happen shortly after Biden took presidency. It's going to happen eventually if they keep ruling like shit. Revolutions are started by such political stunts.
  Although I used to think all the crazy school shooters were eventually going to be lefties as well. Turns out they at least try to get medicated and fix themselves. Righties just go out murdering for apeshit reasons lol. Still, I know way more people on the left in serious depression and wanting to commit suicide. With the amount of fame MSM gives suicidal murderers... like before, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.
  
  This patently false, compared to the world as a whole the US is quite liberal. Only in certain aspects, compared to certain European countries is the US "right-wing". US for instance has way more liberal freedom of speech and religion than most countries. How many European countries have a state religion?
- That's not the way it works in the rest of the free world. Judges are, by definition, trusted to be impartial interpreters of the law/constitution. That's their role.
  The problem is that these judges are appointed through a political process, as about any government worker apparently is. This way you get a hyper politicized country, where even the job of librarian is no longer just a job, but an oppointment that should be strictly controlled.
  It's absolutely baffling.
- Yes. The supreme court is a political tool just like every other branch of government.
  They are not impartial. They all have agendas.
  I think Canada may not have this issue because there aren't as many different cultures in Canada competing for dominance.
  Even though your ruling class wants to extend its reach as much as possible, they acknowledge they're still ruling over Canadians.
  In the US, it's "city people ruling over country" or "whites ruling over blacks" or "christians ruling over everything." This means it's acceptable and even encouraged for one group to abuse another.
  This creates an "us vs. them" mentality because it really is us vs. them.
- Your parliament just gave a nazi a standing ovation.
COLOUR ME SHOCKED
Okay, but "The Extreme Court" does sound a lot cooler.
He's not alone
I mean, if this is the way the executive branch is talking about the judicial branch, both of them should be forced to resign and be replaced with other people.
How that is, I have no clue, but you can't run a country with distrust like this.
- Both sides paint the other as the enemy of democracy and freedom.
  That's just what happens when you have two authoritarian parties. They just lob Accusation-In-a-Mirror attacks at each other.
And proceeds to do fuck all about it! Awesome.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
That’s alright. A decision to release billions to Iran to cause a war is so much worse.
If team magma wins, what will the water Pokemon do??
Social contract is unraveling.
I think each state should have 1 justice. Enough of this supreme 9 crap.
- No way.
  That's just creating a judicial version of the Senate.
  I don't want a drastic overall of the SC, I just want to see more accountability.
  
  I don’t want a drastic overall of the SC, I just want to see more accountability.
  Ok, agreed but can we do term limits next? This giving it to the whoever is the president when someone drops is bullshit. Especially now that the bar has been lowered so far for the office.
- Ok cool, so that way 500 thousand people will have the same say over our constitution as 40 million people, just because they live in the dirt state.
  
  What are these numbers? There's 330 million in US, are these the number of people that vote? Genuine question
- The States already have their own courts. We don't need a federal government at all, really, except a few very limited purposes. The purposes are even already spelled out for us in the US Constitution.
  
  Hahahahah.
  Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
  HAHAHAHAH!
  
  Yeahhh.... we fought a whole ass war over this one you're wrong.
  
  Obviously states and ctitizens in general can not agree on the proper interpretation of the Constitution, therefore SCOTUS exists. So long as there is a SCOTUS there needs to be equal representation. 9 people holding life-long seats are far too few for far too long. Special interest groups can take control too easily as has happened.
"Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS."
Fixed if for you.
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.
  
  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 these comments: a shit ton of people who have zero idea how their own country works. Y’all are an embarrassment to yourselves and your countrymen.
- Either help solve the problem by telling people what the fuck you're talking about or don't bother commenting at all
Cool. Impeachments when? Oh wait never, cause talk is cheap
- What part of the government has the power of impeachment and which party is in control of it?
  
  Do you really believe that if Dems win a majority in the House they'll start impeachment proceedings? This isn't a problem that started this year. His damn wife was involved in an attack on Congress.
If only you were in a position to do something about it...
- Honest question here ... what would you have him do?
  
  There are a few options available. Pack the court, call for ethics inquiries, draw attention to the unconfirmed justices, or literally anything at all. Go on the attack. Be a leader. Demand justice. Biden is content to shrug and say "Ah, well, you see the GOP controls too much, so only if we have all the power can we make things better."
  He's not governing, he's campaigning.
  
  He could introduce a plan to reform the courts, but it would ultimately have to go through Congress.
  
  Step down and be replaced with Bernie.
  
  Limit how many years they can stay there?
  
  Pack the court it's with in his power to add justices to the Supreme Court. Democrats have the majority in the Senate so it can be done.
- He's not, unless you want a different coup. It's up to Congress and the Senate. Executive, Legislative, Judicial.
  
  It's checks and balances, not rock paper scissors
  His power here is to set a direction and to nominate new appointees. He could write a bill to expand the bench and/or a constitutional amendment to require a code of ethics... Hell, he could even say "ok supreme Court, you say you can self-regulate... Publish your own code of conduct publicly or I'll lead the charge in imposing one on you"
  Presidents have a lot of soft power. He can write executive orders to demand the problem be evaluated, or he can use his platform to rally support... He can even go to Thomas privately and suggest he resign with dignity while he can, even try to bluff him off the bench
  There's a lot he could do - his hard power over the supreme Court is very limited, but soft power is how most everything works
  
  Technically 2/3 of states could amend by statute
- 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.
  
  Prior to that… 1978.
  Surely you meant 1987 through 1995.
  
  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.

372 comments