Someone needs to give the Supreme Court an ultimatum.

[kentuck]

Silly, huh?

I do not think so. They are not above the laws of the people, of our Constitution. They are not supreme arbiters of right and wrong, as they have proven many times in our history.

Who would give that ultimatum? A strong president could do it.

Either you fix this disastrous ruling or we will fix it for you!

We will nominate however many justices are needed to overturn your calamitous ruling. We need clarification immediately.

A strong president, under the ruling by this same Supreme Court, could nominate as many new Justices as he deems necessary to protect our laws and our Constitution. They have already said that the President is immune from any charges, so they have already spoken.

I would like to see Joe Biden do it before his first term is over. The insane notion that one man is above the law cannot stand. No man can be a judge of himself. We can go all the way back to the Magna Carta to find something so insane.

[struggle4progress]

1. Nope: they won't listen. Let's explain to voters just how corrupt the rightwing justices are

[kentuck]

6. Of course, they won't listen.

That is why they have to be shown that they do not have the supreme power they think they do.

[struggle4progress]

7. We can hold a "surprise!" party for them later

[brooklynite]

2. President Biden has been clear that he won't expand the Court.

[kentuck]

3. Maybe he can be persuaded to change his mind?

That happens sometimes. Maybe someone can make him an offer he can't refuse?

[brooklynite]

17. Didn't happen after Dobbs. Didn't happen after Chevron. Didn't happen after Trump.

[GoreWon2000]

4. Failing to reign in SCOTUS in 2000 with Bush vs Gore ruling is how we got here.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Who was going to do the reigning in?

[GoreWon2000]

15. Senate dems should've supported CBC challenge to the fraudulent Florida vote count.

That would've sent a message to the anti-democracy GOP controlled SCOTUS.

[Dave says]

18. One of the sign-posts, anyway

[tritsofme]

5. Why push this falsehood that Biden now has magical powers to add Supreme Court justices?

He doesn’t, and falsely claiming that he does, while then being disappointed when he doesn’t use the powers you pretend he has, does nothing for his reelection.

[kentuck]

8. Yes, you are right.

We would need a majority in the House and Senate. Of course, no Republican would ever vote with a Democrat for such a proposal. They would prefer to live under such tyranny.

[delisen]

14. A sufficiently aroused citizenry can give pause to authoritarians

I think discussing all possibilities among ourselves and with others until experts weigh in is useful.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. I just don't know. That would confirm unitary executive theory. Dictator in essence.

Do we want to go there? It would be official acts, nominating with no vacancies, but to protect the Constitution.

What do you do with SCOTUS Dictators who want to install a Dictator?

I keep retreating to co-equal branches of government, and Marbury v. Madison, the right of judicial review. Judicial review isn't very co-equal. Supreme Court and supreme law of the land aren't very co-equal. They are very Authoritarian.

Joy Reid was correct, Trump and SCOTUS 6 would be 7 Dictators running the country.

DOJ has been conspicuously silent. How do you fracture SCOTUS power so they stop inventing new non-existent laws while invalidating precedent?

This is all I got: What about local jurisdiction?? D.C. Courts. SCOTUS is local to the District of Columbia. Maybe tie up the works for a few weeks if an injunction can be obtained? Surely some lawyers will tell me this is impossible, but just a thought. All crime is local. Overturning the Constitution is a crime.

[kentuck]

11. Use it or lose it.

It is not the Democrats that covet a unitary executive. But if the Supreme Court gives him the power to correct their disastrous mistake, then why shouldn't he do it?

In my opinion, it will take a strong president to fix this mess. FDR tried it once and failed, as I recall?

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Yes and FDR had fat Senate majority. And he had a whole second term to do it.

We have 120 days, maybe 190 by Jan 21 2025.

[delisen]

13. I Share your Concern

It seems to me though that the SC6 immunity case majority opinion has a “poison pill” for pro-democracy presidents.
The justices have given themselves the final right to decide whether a president is immune.

They can can make immediate decisions against anything a Democratic president decides and make immediate decisions in favor of anything an authoritarian, ant-democracy president decides.

I am waiting for Kirshner and other legal experts to zero in on the possibilities but think what you are raising here is important to raise now.

[gab13by13]

16. You are barking up the wrong tree Kentuck

We need to win the election first. Joe's first item of business should be to fire Merrick Garland. 2nd important item of business, nominate a replacement who won't get 20 Magat Senators to confirm him/her. If Joe can't get the votes the new person becomes the acting Attorney General. The first item of business of the new AG is to issue subpoenas to Crowe, Kevin Roberts, Bannon, Leonard Leo, Clarence Thomas, Ginni Thomas, Alito, and all of the other billionaires who bribed the court or who financed or worked on Project 2025.

If the statute of limitations hasn't expired, open up an investigation into the retirement of justice Kennedy and the subsequent appointment of Neil Gorsuch to take his place. To bring back our democracy we need to cut off the heads of the snakes, figuratively.

If we keep the Senate, eliminate the filibuster and appoint 4 more justices.

Doing less than this will take generations to undo the damage done.