Biden pledges to name progressives to the Supreme Court, suggesting he expects vacancies

2 years ago by MicroWave to c/news

President Joe Biden promised Black voters Wednesday that he would appoint progressives to the US Supreme Court if elected to a second term, suggesting he expects vacancies on the high court over the next four years.

President Joe Biden promised Black voters Wednesday that he would appoint progressives to the US Supreme Court if elected to a second term, suggesting he expects vacancies on the high court over the next four years.

“The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life,” he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.

It was as explicit a warning as Biden could offer about the stakes of the upcoming election, and a clear reminder that some of the nine justices have entered their seventies.

Clarence Thomas is 75 and Samuel Alito is 74; both are conservative and appointed by Republican presidents. Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal who was nominated by President Barack Obama, turns 70 next month.

load all comments
restingboredface 64 points 2 years ago

He should pull an FDR and try to get the court expanded to 12.

path: 0 10347843, hotness: undefined, score: 64, children: 26
cogman 83 points 2 years ago

11 or 13. You don't do even numbers on the SC so there aren't voting ties.

path: 0 10347843 10348008, hotness: undefined, score: 83, children: 12
ImADifferentBird 77 points 2 years ago

13 makes the most sense. There are 13 circuits, why not 13 Supreme Court justices?

path: 0 10347843 10348008 10348334, hotness: undefined, score: 77, children: 5
restingboredface 13 points 2 years ago

Yeah agreed. I never quite understood FDRs thinking on putting an even number of people in the court. We have so many 5-4 decisions now an even court would be chaos.

path: 0 10347843 10348008 10348890, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 1
SchmidtGenetics 3 points 2 years ago

Can’t they recuse or abstain from voting though?

path: 0 10347843 10348008 10348281, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
xmunk 2 points 2 years ago

12 with ties being decided by a season of survivor.

path: 0 10347843 10348008 10351987, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
dhork 36 points 2 years ago

13 is a better number, it matches the number of Federal Appelate Courts.

If Democrats manage to take both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I would advocate for immediately passing a law to increase the size of the SC to 13, effective for the start of the SC's 2026 term.

Then, Democrats and Republicans should go to work to enact a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on the SC. Republicans would finally have incentive to do it quickly, or else Biden would name 4 young Liberals to the SC who will be there 40+ years without term limits.

path: 0 10347843 10348158, hotness: undefined, score: 36, children: 7
ares35 13 points 2 years ago

also 13 original colonies.. 13 stripes on the flag.

some magahead: so that means 1.2..3..4.....7 republicans........ and 1..2....6 confederates?

path: 0 10347843 10348158 10348200, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 2
cm0002 12 points 2 years ago

I think a better solution should tie SC seats to the number of federal district courts. That way, should the number grow in the future, SC seats will be added automatically

path: 0 10347843 10348158 10348894, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 1
FattestMattest 4 points 2 years ago

If I'm not mistaken, Biden could add seats if he wanted to, so could any president. I think no one wants to do it because then the other party would add more as well.

path: 0 10347843 10348158 10350782, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
BertramDitore 15 points 2 years ago

I wish he would. The only thing stopping him, ironically, is his fear of appearing partisan (and angering “moderate” republicans, if they even exist anymore), despite the fact that that’s exactly what this would be attempting to remedy.

I’d love to be wrong, but he’ll never do it. He’s barely even willing to talk about the supreme court’s corruption and blatant bias. I think he’s allergic to that much institutional change.

path: 0 10347843 10348149, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 3
ZombiFrancis 6 points 2 years ago

He called Trump semi-fascist in 2022 and backed off since. Biden does not push the limits of any power he wields.

You'll note there has been an endless amount of arguments about Biden's limitations to his ability and power to effect change, but never that he is pushed up against those limits.

Biden was most popular when he was fighting for Green New Deal and BBB. But his inability to whip his party into voting for the platform the Democratic party ran on was disappointing and he has never recovered.

path: 0 10347843 10348149 10349550, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2
venusaur 3 points 2 years ago

He won’t. Biden would have done it already.

path: 0 10347843 10349006, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
news
news

@lemmy.world

login for more options
38902
39617
9123

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

go to feed...