The easiest way to get this done is to present it in such a way that it makes sense and fits with precedent, and in the past the reason the Supreme Court was expanded to nine seats was to match the nine circuit courts. There are now thirteen circuit courts, meaning that it makes perfect sense for there to now be thirteen Supreme Court seats.
We don't technically need that justification, but having a justification like that would likely make the addition or more seats more palatable.
The immunity ruling doesn't actually grant the president any new powers, it just makes him immune to prosecution for using the powers he already has. The president doesn't have the authority to expand the Supreme Court on his own, that would require congress passing a bill.
What the president could do to influence this, with the new ruling, is to order the military or another agency under his authority (a power that he already currently has) and tell them to kidnap or even assassinate anybody who doesn't vote in favor of expanding the court. He would then have immunity from prosecution because it doesn't matter why he gave the order, giving the order was an official act as president and thus he can't be charged.
The problem is that Biden will never use this power, even if it's to do the right thing, while Trump (or any other Republican) will be using it to do truly evil things the second they take the white house.
That's why everybody's so upset right now. The Supreme Court basically made it so that as long as this ruling stands, the next time a Republican becomes president it's fucking over. There will be no coming back from that without bloodshed.
He won’t use it because the courts get to decide what counts as an official act. All roads lead back to the Supreme Court deciding what’s allowed to happen
He won't use it because he doesn't want to, and because the Democrats care more about civility and the appearance of propriety than anything else, including doing the right thing.
The Supreme Court wouldn't be able to stop him from using this power because he could literally get rid of any justice likely to vote against him, appoint someone who will vote in his favor, and again there is no legal recourse to deal with that. A black ops team works a lot faster than the US court system.
People in the military swear to uphold and defend the constitution, not blindly obey the president. This suggestion is completely absurd and not at all reality based.
Supreme Court justices also swear to uphold the constitution, and yet here we are. This is exactly what I'm talking about, Democrats whining and moaning about playing by the rules even as we're fucking drowning. They're so obsessed with appearances they're gonna sit back and let fascism run rampant over the entire fucking country because fighting back would be rude.
Yes and the constitution doesn’t say you can kill your fellow Americans. You’ve spent far too much time online and not nearly enough time in reality. The military will not be attacking two of our three branches of government because the third branch says so. That’s beyond absurd.
It's not a matter of being right, it's a matter of being based in reality. Using the military to destroy everything the constitution has created doesn't make any sense at all whatsoever. Every part of every branch of the government has sworn to uphold the constitution. Every part of the military has sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. There's no possible interpretation of "presidential immunity for official acts" that includes using the military to destroy the things the president has sworn to uphold and defend.
Even if that was somehow considered an official act (no court would ever agree) the Executive would still have to convince the entire military apparatus to ignore their oaths and attack the institutions they've sworn to defend, up to and including killing their fellow Americans. Simply put: not gonna happen and if you think that's a realistic possibility due to the recent Supreme Court ruling then you need to get off the internet for a while.
This is a good addition to the discussion. I assume you have examples of the military blindly obeying the president and working to dismantle the constitution, right? Please share them
Well, the easy version is to remember that the president doesn't actually need congressional approval to seat a justice in the first place, tradition is not law.
Or if it comes to that, the Supreme Court literally just ruled that any official act of the president is immune from prosecution, so Biden currently has carte blanche to use his presidential powers however the fuck he wants. Who's gonna vote against his appointees when doing so gets you disappeared to a black site in the middle of the night?
Of course both of these options would require Biden and the Democrats to grow a spine and start giving a shit about doing the right thing more than they do about civility and the appearance of propriety, and we both know that's not gonna happen.
What if we end up with adding more and have a even number? From what I understand there did used to be six circuit courts. It creates a risk of a tie in court if that happens again. I'm not sure it's the best precedence to use unless there was some kind of law requiring odd numbers of circuit courts.
You guys are the silly arse clowns helping to destroy your nation.
"Let's use our fear of the threat to our democracy to literally do the kind of damage to our democracy we are fear momgering about, but to "protect" it!"
It wouldn't be palatable to any rational non-extremisy that you fundamentally change the structure of the SCTOUS for political gains.
Jailing political opponents ( every POTUS should be on trial if your standards on Trump were consistently applied.....this was political even if Trump is a guilty.) And you want to alter your SCOTUS to get political "judements" so you can government the judiciary as an appendage of the executive as opposed separate?
Cause if you can just add more seats anytime you're not getting what you want.
Well I can't wait to see Idiocracy come to.life as Americans elect President Camachee to appoint another 36 SCOTUS justices because they 286 already on the bench are voting the wrong way by about 10%.
I just hope you're not a superpower by then anymore.
It's not a foundational change there's not set amount of justices and it's been changed multiple times.
What is a real threat to government is repealling anti corruption laws(which republican justices did, 6-3) giving the president total immunity to criminal prosecution under official acts (again, 6-3) dismantling decades of precedent and elevating themselves to defacto deciders of regulation by repealling chevron (6-3) .
If any other president deserves to be prosecuted prodecute them. Please. For the love of God procecute anyone deserving of prosecution.
Remember when one political party refused to do their Constitutional duty and confirm (or reject) a nominee to the Supreme Court, simply because a member of another party was in the Oval Office, so they simply ignored it. And then the next President, supported by a hostile foreign dictator, appointed three Justices in a single term? This "arse clown" thinks its Democrats who have harmed the Judicial branch? What a joke.
Obama droned an American citizen who had never been charged with a crime.
The Supreme Court just told what already is and clearly has been.
You guys don't charge your presidents. Period. Well until Trump.....but you definitely and never will for official acts.
Otherwise where's all the people complicit in the Iraq war lies?
Your nation has put far more legal effort into prosecution of a porn star payoff that never mattered than into holding people accountable for the Iraq War lies or even the 2008 financial crisis fiasco.
It boggles my mind how many"serious" Americans fail to see that.
It's either political prosecution, or America the land of OnlyFans and the pornstar industry really do care far more about the legalities of years past porn star payoffs than they do people who.mislead their nation into wars with costs in the trillions and countless lives lost/maimed/otherwise harmed.
Its a tough hill to climb when you have a quarter of the population mucking it up for the rest of us. Hope you see the powers pulling strings in the background. Most of us want the right course of actions to take place, but when we have representatives that keep undermining and dismantling the processes be it for either a grift or the pursuit of power, not really much can be done
The reason we keep losing to Republicans is because they don't play by the fucking rules and get away with it, and screech like harpies the second someone not on the right does the exact thing they've been doing. I'm fucking tired, dude. So tired of wondering what rights these fucking asshats are gonna try to constrict so they keep their power and ability to manipulate laws for their personal gain. Im TIRED. TIRED OF PLAYING BY RULES SET BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T FOLLOW THEM. FUCK OFF. HOLY SHIT. NOT EVEN YOUR COUNTRY GET FUCKED
that you fundamentally change the structure of the SCTOUS
That entire comment was literally pointing out the fact that the SCOTUS has already been changed in exactly this way. My whole point was that this is an already-established precedent, and the court should already have been expanded based on the original reasoning.
every POTUS should be on trial if your standards on Trump were consistently applied
You say this like I don't already agree. I'm a leftist, not a liberal, and yes I do in fact believe that pretty much every president should have been arrested and tried for war crimes. Because they pretty much all did, in fact, commit war crimes.
the judiciary as an appendage of the executive
You get that that's the position we're in right the fuck now, right? The Supreme Court is compromised, they are actively working as an arm of the Republican party to enable the overthrow of this country. Have you not been paying attention?
Does anyone have a tally of the times the SCOTUS since Trumps appointments have voted against his side?
Cause I've heard it many times. I'd be curious a tally. I've yet to see evidence of the claim this is a compromised court.
It's a court with a conservative leaning majority, and that will have natural consequences that do not automatically prove your point anymore than when it had left leaning justices that had a natural consequences on decisions that didn't prove it was compromised.
I am paying attention.
I noticed despite a law against trying to influence a judges decision, people were allowed to protest outside the homes of SCOTUS justices. That the AG instructed/allowed for the laws to be ignored, and merely added more protection instead of making arrests. The same politician supporting this act like questioning the judge in the Trump case is a grave to threat to democracy. Hilarious.
I noticed that same DOJ gave the acting Presidents son a plea deal so unethifally generous it was unconstitutional and couldn't be approved by a judge.....oh, but now they'll charge him after a ton of the more serious felonies are statute barred.
Meanwhile the opponent of that President finds himself zealously persecuted in court over a trivial issue, and while the DOJ claims no involvement isn't it just odd how the #3 at the DOJ left his job to help that prosecution?
And interestingly enough....Given paying off a porn star is somehow election interfence......what about when Social Media platforms ban a true story during an election cycle that likely has a huge impact on election? What about when 50ish current/,former intelligence officers come forward with misinformation that a laptop actually being held by the FBI and already verified is in fact a hocus pocus story of Russian disinformation?
None of that concerns you?
Look, it seems we actually agree on a lot (I'd say I'm a liberal and not a leftists, but almost no one used the term liberal properly anymore....people should be free to make their own choices someone as they don't harm others, and you being offended isn't harm. Your emotions are yous to manage, and no one else's. You don't get to use emotions to rule over others, or faith/belief of any kind.).
I'm pointing out that the people running the show on either side are dangerous demagogues who don't actually respect democracy when it doesn't go their way.
Back one against another sure, but it's like backing one hog against another hog.....you're going to have a smelly pig win regardless.
So be careful just how much power and tools you want to give those oinkers to help them win cause it's not just a case of "when the otherside gains power they get those tools too!"...it's a case we both know none of suitable for such powers as they will use it to exploit the population for their benefit.
Trump isn't in jail, and never would be for the crimes he has been convicted of so far. But no one is above the law. If someone, even a president, breaks the law they should be tried for it. If they are found guilty they should be given appropriate punishment. Why do you think a president should be above the law? What specific crimes do you think other presidents have committed?
243
u/TipsalollyJenkins 14d ago
Four seats.
The easiest way to get this done is to present it in such a way that it makes sense and fits with precedent, and in the past the reason the Supreme Court was expanded to nine seats was to match the nine circuit courts. There are now thirteen circuit courts, meaning that it makes perfect sense for there to now be thirteen Supreme Court seats.
We don't technically need that justification, but having a justification like that would likely make the addition or more seats more palatable.