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.

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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)_/¯

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I always took that phrase as expressed in the Constitution to be a quantitative factor? Several as in three to many.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nice, ty.

                Definition & Citations: Separate; individual; Independent. In this sense the word is distinguished from “joint.” Also exclusive; iudi- vidual; appropriated. In this sense it is opposed to “common.”

                Still confused though, quantity wise. Basically, the point being made here:

                By definition, several means three or more (but often less than many, which we will cover next.) So, if several party-goers out of a group of nine were intoxicated, several could correctly be translated as three or four. If five party-goers were intoxicated, that would usually be stated as most. However, if several party-goers out of 100 people were intoxicated, that wouldn’t be three or four, but a slightly higher number. So again, this term is challenging to interpret under time pressure because its meaning can change, depending on the size of the group.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 (2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate) 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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          I would argue though that if it’s something that truly needs to be changed by the majority that it would get done.

          The problem is the way our politics are today (those in office care more about gaining money to stay in office than their constituency, etc.), and the population being split almost down the middle and adhearing to that mindset (‘my team is always right’) over the common good, makes getting that type of majority almost impossible.

          But again, that’s still on us, not our forefathers.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure that I see the American Collapse happening in my lifetime as a certainty, but I would agree that it’s a very strong possibility if we don’t get our shit together pretty fucking quick.

          • Clent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s won’t collapse. We’ll become another authoritarian state.

            It’ll be isolationist so only Mexico should be worried.

            • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah if we go that route, I absolutely expect some Christian Nationalist administration to decide that it’s time to take over Mexico, which to be clear is an apocalyptically stupid idea.

              • TechyDad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Some of the MAGA folks are already saying that we should bomb/invade Mexico to stop the drug cartels and immigrants. Of course, they hand-wave how horrible a war would be. They assume that Mexico would thank the US for such a great bombing and ask for more. Because MAGA.

                • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  For anyone who was downvoting the above comment: It’s absolutely a real thing that Republicans have been talking about for a while now.

                  This should concern you. Only a complete imbecile would think that conducting unilateral military action against Mexico is a good idea. We would rightly be cast in the same light as Russia vis a vis Ukraine. We would destroy any remaining semblance of geopolitical soft power we still have. We would be unambiguously turning away from even trying to be the “good guys”. We would be global pariahs, just like Russia is now, and we would deserve it.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s amazing to me the way we’ve elevated the constitution to near biblical proportions. And just like the Bible where every church and pastor interprets it in their own way, so too do our 9 oracles in black robes interpret the will of our village elders from ages past.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And just like the Bible where every church and pastor interprets it in their own way, so too do our 9 oracles in black robes interpret the will of our village elders from ages past.

            “So shall it be written, so shall it be done”, eh?

            There are parallels in your example because it all comes down to governance of people, but I truly don’t think that people look at the Constitution/Courts like they do at the Bible.