this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
273 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3588 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment

And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power...

The difference is this would be legal.

it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court.

Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.

Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that's fine. Because we've already taken back the majority.

I know you're arguing against fixing stuff, but your arguent basically boils down to:

If we just try to fix part of the problem, it won't fix everything

I agree.

Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it's all fixed.

And you think we should fix...

Nothing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The difference is this would be legal.

There's no difference with a broken court and we can't fix that with our current Congress.

I know you're arguing against fixing stuff,

What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I'm not even the person you were first talking to.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress

We dont need congress to expand the SC court...

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

Just like Obama didn't need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there's nothing saying they have to.

So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.

Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.

Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating...

Which is why I'm probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.

If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing....

I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What's weird is after I block one of them, it's common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren't getting any other new replies.

Could it be a giant coincidence?

Sure but I just don't think it's likely.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

We dont need congress to expand the SC court…

Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?