There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Wahots ,
@Wahots@pawb.social avatar

Fuck yeah, he has my vote. The Supreme Court needs some serious nerfs and better guardrails.

johannesvanderwhales ,

Amendment. I would be shocked if a constitutional amendment passes in the next 30 years.

Inferno ,

Hey Biden, why don’t you work on giving term limits for the house and Senate first And then work on term limits for the court.

Zyansheep ,

Honesty kinda conflicted on representative term limits. Longer term people can be out of touch, but they also have a lot of experience and know how to collaborate to get laws passed 🤔

Corkyskog ,
@Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works avatar

I think congress critters should be seated and dormed together by state, not by party. They would be less vile towards each other. Think of the pizza parties!

vaultdweller013 ,

Or more vile, I feel like Californian house members would start trying to openly kill eachother. Imagine an Inland Imperial trying to get along with someone from LA, or San Francisco, or the Central valley, or the Hi desert, or Hesparia, or the wrong part of the Inland empire. Ya know what I think we just have problems with everyone else, Victorville and San Diego are chill though.

baltakatei ,

If he doesnʼt die from [www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics/…/index.html COVID].

Olhonestjim , (edited )

Stack the fucking court Joe. I don’t care if there are 500 Supreme Court Justices.

sudo ,

Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.

shottymcb , (edited )

Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.

So we need record turnout for that. Vote.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

They had the house, the senate and the white house before the mid terms and they squandered it

sprolemo ,

Are you talking about the period in which Sinema and Manchin actively sabotaged the agenda of their own party?

explodicle ,

Just saying, he could officially eliminate a few justices in the short term.

whoreticulture ,

Kicks in the door, guns blazing … official presidential business 😎

InternetUser2012 ,

Vote and volunteer to help others get to the booths if they can’t on their own. We know they want to do everything they can to make voting harder for the blue. Getting the blue to stay home is their only chance of winning. If everyone votes, there is no longer a republican party. (or those that are around won’t matter, they won’t be able to strip rights from the American people)

TheReturnOfPEB ,

38 states to agree on that constitutional amendment ?

Which states ?

geneva_convenience , (edited )
@geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml avatar

The most amazing ideas always come when the election draws close. But he can’t implement any of them because there is no time.

Good thing Biden already fulfilled his previous election promises. Student loans are a thing of the past.

ayyy ,

He rescheduled the fuck out of weed too right….riiiight?

explodicle ,

Whoah whoah whoah. He said “push for”, not implement. He’ll do his best!

BonesOfTheMoon ,

Just let me get that barn door for you Democrats.

TokenBoomer ,

Liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle.

-Nietzsche

TheReturnOfPEB , (edited )

What does that make cattle transformed into ?

Sweetpeaches69 ,

Steak.

nifty ,
@nifty@lemmy.world avatar

Incomplete and out of context sentiment, recommended reading here: historicalmaterialism.org/nietzsche-in-his-time-t…

In addition to its critical analysis of Nietzsche’s philosophy, The Aristocratic Rebel presents readers with a distinctive window into nineteenth century liberal thought, showing how Nietzsche held deep sympathies with liberal thinkers of his time and indeed forged much of his thought in line with many liberal ideals. Situating Nietzsche in the political context of his time helps readers to locate and bring Nietzsche to life in our present day when the debates between liberal and socialist conceptions of justice, equality and emancipation remain ever pertinent questions.

Some more context:

What made Nietzsche’s reactionary political views sympathetic to liberalism were their mutual disdain for socialist leveling and equality. This similarity led Nietzsche to endorse many of the same pro-imperial and anti-egalitarian sentiments that liberals of his time adopted. We must read Nietzsche’s political thought in the wake of the Napoleonic conquests of Germany for which the German liberal establishment agreed that the influence of the French ideals of egalitarianism and equality were foreign impositions on German culture, stripping it of its vitality

TokenBoomer ,

Thanks for the context.

Facebones , (edited )

“Biden says more things he’ll immediately abandon on day one to appeal to a left he’s actively working to undermine with multiple bills in congress right now.”

enbyecho ,

Demonstrably false.

Facebones ,

Wrong

enbyecho ,

Here ya go: www.politifact.com/…/biden-promise-tracker/?rulin…

Edit: I know, you’ll bitch and moan and complain but the facts remain facts

Facebones ,

…my brother in Christ,.thats a pretty fucking low number to be out here flexing and saying anyone who disagrees with you is “bitching and moaning.”

Since you’re obviously on the blue MAGA game I’m just going to go ahead and block you now.

Crikeste ,

his “top 5” is actually just 3. The other 2 marked ‘compromised’ and ‘stalled’. lmfao Blue MAGA Only-Bidens crack me up.

EatATaco ,

You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

I’m not sure I’ve read a single political post by facebones that has ever been actually thoughtful. It’s also just “muh both sides!”

enbyecho ,

QED

enbyecho ,

QED

Crikeste ,

Lmao You think his top 5 being only 3 real things he’s done is helping your point? That’s crazy.

There’s more to the list, sure. But they could name 3 that were significant enough? Wild.

enbyecho ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    TokenBoomer ,

    Please demonstrate. He still owes me $600.

    crusa187 ,

    What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.

    EnderWiggin ,

    What would you have recommend he do?

    Sludgeyy ,

    Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.

    enbyecho ,

    Like he’s doing

    EatATaco ,

    Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!

    LoreleiSankTheShip ,

    Not an American, but increasing SC members would seem like a good thing to do. The more people on it, the harder it is to stack.

    billiam0202 ,

    The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law. The President can’t* appoint more without Congress passing a law adding more.

    *Of course, that was before they ruled that Presidents are totally immune from any prosecution, so who the fuck knows now.

    crusa187 ,

    The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law.

    This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.

    CriticalThought ,

    I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”

    crusa187 ,

    Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.

    shottymcb ,

    There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it’s just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.

    Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it’s not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.

    sudo ,

    Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.

    Jiggle_Physics ,

    Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.

    Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.

    crusa187 ,

    The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.

    enbyecho ,

    What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.

    He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC’s presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I’m mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.

    This might be of interest: How the US supreme court shredded the constitution and what can be done to repair it

    SapphironZA ,

    Yep, Biden is under the delusion that representatives vote on policies based on what their constituents want.

    billiam0202 ,

    Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema already said they weren’t going to support that, so what do you suggest the President do without a Senate majority?

    prole ,

    It’s crazy how often I see people doing this; they’re ardently against Trump’s efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn’t do x y, or z when those aren’t things that fall under his purview.

    What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it’s the neo-liberal I like?

    crusa187 ,

    Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.

    But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    So, in effect: “idk do SOMETHING”? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?

    There’s an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.

    crusa187 ,

    It does not work that way

    Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    I think I see what you’re saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn’t have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.

    Fedizen ,

    he has absolute immunity to whatever courtesy of the supreme court.

    shottymcb ,

    Biden doesn’t. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.

    agitatedpotato ,

    Oh then it’s okay he didn’t even try anything until he realized he was so unpopular people are asking him to step down.

    billiam0202 ,

    That’s not what I said bro.

    People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn’t. Fixing SCOTUS isn’t going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.

    shottymcb ,

    On that last part, you’re not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an “official act”.

    sudo ,

    Those two should’ve been kicked out of the party a long time ago. Both are up for reelection this year and are not running as a democrat.

    shottymcb , (edited )

    What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn’t have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.

    Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it’s not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R’s will respect the filibuster if it’s in their way at this point though.

    sudo ,

    You don’t have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won’t betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.

    Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying “It’d be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we’re in power.” is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren’t naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.

    vxx ,

    There’s no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it’s critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.

    cupcakezealot ,
    @cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    it’s almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.

    jordanlund ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    He can’t do it with a Republican House and a Senate that requires 60 votes to do anything.

    retrospectology ,
    @retrospectology@lemmy.world avatar

    And even if he could, there’s literally zero reason to think he would. This is more empty campaign rhetoric like back in 2020.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Yep, this is the carrot that will never be given to us, standard DNC playbook.

    jordanlund ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s the thing that kills me, he makes these promises that he KNOWS he can’t get done, which leads to the whole “Well, Democrats never do anything!” argument.

    What he NEEDS to say is “Here’s what I want to do, but I need your help throwing out the bastards in the House and Senate blocking it! Here are their names, let’s get them gone!”

    EnderWiggin ,

    That’s the real problem, but too many people here and elsewhere are unaware of the limitations on how the legislative process works. Anything like this is pretty much DOA and purely ceremonial. I’m happy for all of the positive things Biden has been able to get done in spite of such gridlock, but amendment level change in this country is just not at all possible right now.

    jordanlund ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    Nope. And while the call for a Constitutional Convention to re-do the whole thing currently has more support (28 states out of 34 required), it’s generally coming from red states and would require 3/4 of the states to approve it. So that’s a non-starter too.

    www.commoncause.org/…/article-v-convention/#

    A_Random_Idiot ,

    Well, I mean. if their rhetoric has hit a tipping point, maybe there wont be 60 for long.

    terraced_wildcat303 ,

    Would have been good if he was working last 3.5 years too, now doing damage control is too little too late

    Burstar ,
    @Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    The problem ofc being that congress fights him tooth and nail for anything he wants done, but yeah… all his fault.

    retrospectology ,
    @retrospectology@lemmy.world avatar

    Not all his fault, but he definitely shares much of the blame, largely due to a lack of leadership on the topic.

    What the president can do in those situations is focus the discussion, he has the highest pulpit of any politician, he should’ve been using it to move the frame of discussion and shift party strategy to make court reform a stronger pillar of the party platform. When the president says something it gives other party members permission to hammer on an idea.

    Instead he lingered on his dusty, worthless notions of bipartisanship and “reaching across the aisle” and wasted all his political capital defending a genocide.

    agitatedpotato ,

    He could have done what hes trying to do now three years ago. Why did he wait until there were LESS democrats in office before trying?

    Burstar ,
    @Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    … Because the SC seemed to act sufficiently unbiased and ethically until now?

    Thedogspaw ,

    This is like Bidens re election chance 0% chance this actually happens 🤣😭

    AlexWIWA ,

    Hopefully he succeeds. The court is fucked

    octopus_ink ,

    I can’t imagine how he possibly will. R is happy just the way things are.

    retrospectology , (edited )
    @retrospectology@lemmy.world avatar

    People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a better chance of that happening than Biden winning.

    Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •