Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

[Jose Garcia]

Source: ABC News

President Joe Biden remains unmoved on the issue of court expansion, the White House said, despite his criticism of the Supreme Court rulings handed down this week on gun rights and abortion.

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

Democrats and activists are floating the idea after the high court expanded gun rights and did away with 50 years of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and others expressly called for expanding the court in the wake of the decision on abortion access.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story%3fid=85703773

[Delphinus]

1. I didn't read

any reasons why he is not in favor of expanding - does anyone know?

[d_b]

6. Any word from Dem leadership

on why a fascist minority is allowed to terrorize the republic?

I’m at this stage with our leadership

https://m.

[Demsrule86]

7. We don't have enough votes to add to SCOTUS...and I doubt Biden would tip his hand before

the midterm. Try voting instead of expecting the Democratic leadership to save us...we need to save ourselves.

[ancianita]

17. Exactly right. Biden would not tip his hand.

[Demsrule86]

48. Hi ancianita...thanks!

[ancianita]

49. ...

Hi there! Thank YOU!

[TwilightZone]

26. Not always.

In 2016, some of "us" didn't bother, in part because of unrealistic expectations or intentional ignorance.

That's one reason why we're here in 2022.

Threads like this one demonstrate similar tendencies.

[Demsrule86]

44. +1000

[NullTuples]

83. That's a lovely & common narrative, but...

In states where Crosscheck was used, the ratio of voters removed from the roles to Trump's margin of victory were as high as 30:1.

And that was just *one* of many voter suppression tactics Republicans had in play in 2016.

[Demsrule86]

47. But we don't always vote Democratic in every election...some vote third party which is the same

in terms of the outcome as voting for Republicans. Some Democrats don't bother to vote in midterms. Some demand that their vote is 'earned' and refuse to vote if they don't get a pony...it was the lack of loyal Democratic voters voting for Democrats in every damn election that got us where we are today. If we had elected Gore in 2000, we would not have had Roberts or Alito appointed to SCOTUS.

If we had elected Hillary Clinton, we would not have had Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett appointed to the SCOTUS...that is five justices that all voted to overturn Roe, get rid of Miranda, and not allow new evidence to be used in situations involving death row prisoners. And there is worse coming I fear. Consider that Greens and Justice Democrats and other third-party riffraff cost us five Supreme court justices and Roe. Until we vote Democratic in every damn election and abandon the notion that third parties have any role to play in our party and are not 'allies', we will continue to lose...time is short. The Republic is on the chopping block.

[Demsrule86]

75. Go back and read Jack Pine Radicals, or old twitter post...see all those who were refusing to

vote for the Democratic candidate posting shit...and our voters didn't show up in 10 for President Obama which cost us the House because they didn't get a public option...they didn't show up again in 14 because they were so unhappy with Obama...one Duer called him a used car salesman at the time which cost us a Senate seat...and of course with a SCOTUS pick on the table...they whined about threatening them with the courts. The 'but her email crowd' not showing up for Hillary Played a huge role in the Roe debacle. But then we also should consider Gore. The Greens and other left-leaning voters fucked that up for us too. And two justices appointed by Bush II voted to overturn Roe. It is a fucking travesty.

[Farmer-Rick]

60. We did vote for Gore in 2000

Gore won and would have been president if all the votes in Florida had been counted. But the Supremely Religious Court ruled to stop counting the votes in Florida. They went against what the Florida Supreme Court had ruled.

And Gore had more votes nation wide too.

It was allowing the vote to be stolen from Gore by W, and his Daddy's Supremes, that gave the presidency to W. The voters did their job; the political system failed their job. There should have been a huge fight then but instead all we got was a whimper.

The Supremely Religious Court has been in the religiously insane part of crazytown ever since.

[Demsrule86]

73. Don't start with me... (LOL) I am in a very bad mood...the margin was so small that regardless of

whether they won it or stole...the Greens and those who did not vote for Gore are completely to blame. And two justices voted to end Roe as a result. Fuck Nader and the Green Party...Green= get republicans elected every November. Instead of the need to 'fall in love', Democrats need to consider the repercussions of not voting for the Democratic candidate in every damn election, and of course, they need to consider the courts.

[Farmer-Rick]

80. No, Gore did win

It was just that no one really cared. He won but even he seemed reluctant to stand up to the Supremely Religious Court to keep his win.

The Court's ruling was outside it's authority. "It is virtually unprecedented for the Supreme Court of the United States to arrogate to itself the authority to overrule a state supreme court on a matter of state law. This is an extraordinary assertion of federal judicial power." Also Article II does not grant the Justices of the United States Supreme Court "any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law."" https://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/

The Supremely Religious Court was wrong but no one really wanted to stand up to the court gone to crazytown.

[Demsrule86]

95. It should be what happens...but even after 16, I still here the same shit about earning votes...

[PortTack]

28. Agree..President Biden will have to come around or not only are going to lose freedoms, we will

Lose the country to a RW cult. We won’t survive more freedoms being striped away

[Demsrule86]

45. He shouldn't announce it though before the midterm.

[PortTack]

62. Agree!

[Demsrule86]

72. Thank you.

[ancianita]

63. Right, he should wait to see what the 1st branch numbers look like.

If they're much better for the 118th Congress, he can then "evolve."

[Demsrule86]

71. And we are not giving them an issue to beat us up over.

[PatrickforB]

68. I can promise you, as disgusted as I am over the Dems failure to even be able

to lower the eligibility age for Medicare, forcing me to have to incur HEALTH CARE DEBT at age 63, coupled with the gun ruling, the reversal of the KKK rule forcing cops to read the Miranda rights to people they arrest, and finally this current travesty.

The American electorate is profoundly ignorant - oh, many can tell you every nuance of their favorite sports team, and each of its players, and provide a very sophisticated analysis of their season chances, but don't even know we have three branches of government.

We have the constant barrage of hate-talk radio, which has brainwashed up to 20 or 25 million Americans, and let's not forget the corporate media and its shareholder-profit-driven 'news' coverage. In addition, there are now over 390 million guns in this country, and most are owned by right-wing militia groups who bought them in case they have to 'protect' themselves against the government.

When, do you think, will our party leadership WAKE UP and realize the Republican party no longer supports this republic OR democracy, and instead wants to make this into a theocracy ruled by oligarchs. If you check your history, that is what Nazi Germany was, and it cost 60 million lives to get rid of them.

When I see Biden praising McConnell and McCarthy, I want to throw up. Now, as some of you point out, it may be because he does not want to tip his hand, and he has a plan to save this republic. I would really, really, really like to believe that. I would.

And don't get me wrong - Dems are great, wonderful, excellent in every way. They walk on water compared to jerks like Gosar, Jordan, Hawley, Cruz, little Marco and all the rest of the traitorous cretins. I JUST WISH THEY WOULD THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET AND START FIGHTING THESE PEOPLE LINE BY LINE, TOOTH BY TOOTH, NAIL BY NAIL. I wish they would never again let anything go. Nothing. Never soft pedal anything. Never.

Because we are a couple of Supreme court rulings away from 1896, if the Turtle, McCarthy, Clarence and the rest of the wing-nuts have their way.

So...yeah, I'll be on the phones when I can, trying to get out the vote. In spite of the fact I'm a primary caregiver who works full time, am disabled myself, and now am dealing with HEALTHCARE DEBT. I'll do it.

But is the electorate REALLY smart enough to vote Dem? Are they REALLY motivated enough? Will we really be able to GOTV in the face of the massive billionaire-funded super-pacs and the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine? Or do our leaders need to make some progress first? Do our leaders need to fight back ugly first?

Just asking. And this is not meant to be a criticism of the Dem leaders, God forbid. I'd vote for my snowshoe Siamese cat over ANY Republican.

But....when?

[Demsrule86]

70. We shall see.

Good luck!

[tavernier]

94. Of course.

Why don’t people understand that?
You can’t make an omelette until you have eggs.

[Trueblue1968]

43. i thought Biden WAS in favor of expanding the court. WHY THE CHANGE.

I think he's wrong.

[Demsrule86]

46. We have a midterm...he should not say a damn word about it before the midterm...why help

the GOP by giving them an issue to run on?

[LenaBaby61]

52. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[shawn703]

2. Would it not just be a back and forth?

First order of business when any new administration of the opposing party comes into power if they also have the Senate would be to pack the court in their favor again. Probably end up having as many Justices as Senators before too long.

[Raven123]

5. That's my worry as well.

[highplainsdem]

8. I'm guessing that's the main reason he doesn't support expansion.

[NYC Liberal]

58. It's not going to happen anyway, but maybe that would be a good thing.

If it got to be ridiculous, real reform would be have to happen.

[TygrBright]

3. I have to disagree. We need as many SC Justices as there are Federal Judiciary Districts. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

16. That is my thought too.

I made that point when the topic was brought up earlier.

[ancianita]

18. Absolutely right. This country IS underrepresented on SCOTUS. 13 JUSTICES FOR 13 FEDERAL DISTRICTS

[FM123]

23. Exactly!!!

[Lonestarblue]

21. And even those districts need to be revisited because of population shifts.

The states making up each district have not changed in decades, even though quite a lot of population has shifted south and west, resulting in overwhelming numbers of cases for some districts—cases that take five years or longer to work through the courts. That’s ridiculous. The total population has also grown significantly, and it’s probable that we need even more district courts to help balance the workload. The federal judiciary hasn’t had an overhaul in decades. It’s long overdue.

[C Moon]

4. If there is ever another gop president, you can bet a year's salary that they will expand SCOTUS.

[speak easy]

81. And nuke the filibuster as first order of business.

[Zeitghost]

98. Not a chance

They need the filibuster as we are more likely to hold the Senate in most years.

[speak easy]

99. You are assuming we will still have a democracy.

That is not the plan.

[yaesu]

9. So we will have 6 kings & queen free to rule this country for the foreseeable future, future not

looking too good

[Meadowoak]

10. Just abolish the Supreme Court.

[Anon-C]

11. Reconsider!

[BootinUp]

12. .

[modochartaigh]

57. Supreme court justices

A supreme court justice should be of the highest integrity, absolutely above reproach and answerable only to truth. Instead what we have now is a court already packed with bobbleheads by a party whose only standard is winning at all cost. If the Democrats can get real control of both houses and the presidency they must start adding a clause to every bill stating that the bill is not subject to review by the supreme court.

[Mr.Bill]

13. I like the idea of

rotating Supreme Court and District Court Justices.

[mopinko]

14. then he best be in favor of impeaching purgerers and

those who accept bribes.
oh, and insurrectionists.

[Joinfortmill]

15. Love Joe, but don't agree.

[Timewas]

19. No changes

hey won't add justices so things will just get worse and they won't dump the filibuster so things can continue to get worse.... we are royally fucked.

[Lil Liberal Laura]

20. Pack a dozen more before the midterms!

Even if the Repulsives take the House & Senate, there'll be be two years where the wingnuts won't be able to put anyone forward, as they wouldn't controll the Executive Branch. A lot of good shit could be accomplished in those two years.

[Polybius]

24. How?

Biden just said he opposes expansion.

[bucolic_frolic]

22. It's the kind of thing you'd only get behind if you knew you had the votes and we don't

We're not even close. We may well never get there.

[groundloop]

37. Sadly true..... we're wasting energy talking about this right now

We need to be talking about women's rights and protecting children from gun violence - those items will energize voters. Anything else, especially if it's an impossibility, is a distraction.

[orangecrush]

27. THIS "SUPREME COURT" IS ILLEGITIMATE

What further proof is needed, for the love of God?

ANY AND ALL REMEDIES MUST BE ON THE TABLE AND IMPLEMENTED, FFS

[slightlv]

29. Regardless of his reasoning,

his coming out and saying this is demoralizing at a point in time that is demoralizing enough! And he wants to be president again?! He wants us to come out and vote for him?

Yes, yes, I know... we need to vote in more democrats in the midterms. But excuse me, because I'm a woman and I've waited for 2 years for even ONE of the democrats to have the balls to do something about RvW before they yanked it away... not to mention at least ONE of the voting rights bills. We all knew when they disconnected BBB from the Infrastructure Bill we'd get nothing from either one of them, and sure enough... here we sit.

And no matter how many democrats we have in the Senate or the House, Biden has the bully pulpit. Trump sure found a way to use it to HIS preferences. And I'm sorry; I'm tired of making nice, only to see US become second and third class citizens because we won't stoop to their level. I say bring it on. Fight fire with fire, or they're going to burn it all down around us, laughing at our Kumbaya democratic ethics.

Gods, what I'd give for an FDR or an LBJ right now. ANYONE who'd stick up for the rights and civil liberties of the common people! Right now, they're not giving us much to work with on dragging people to the polls in November. Hell, I'm going to have to drag myself to the polls, and I already feel like they're going to rip that away from me fairly quickly next Scotus go-around.

[Hiawatha Pete]

54. +1

[area51]

56. +1 n/t

[Karma13612]

76. [phone]

I know it’s vacuous to say it, but I am totally in agreement with your frustration, and thoughts.

WHAT.THE.HECK.DO.THEY.WANT.US.TO.DO?

Vote? Check
March? Doing it now
Unite? Check

What do they want the voters to do other than voting, and get our friends and family to the polls???? There is literally NOTHING else we can do. Don’t tell me to run for office. I don’t have the money. Don’t tell me to just trust in my elected officials, I don’t.

And I no longer respect the highest court in the land.

I got to sit in the Supreme Court while they heard a case. I did that when I was a paralegal student and my teacher got us in, along with a visit to our US Rep for our district in CT. I was impressed by the gravity of the visit to our SC. It was memorable. But I also remember that I was told that I could not chew gum, speak, or place my arm away from my body and rest it against the top of the chair next to me. Keep your arms in your lap, period. And your face forward, at all times. Oh, yea, and you can’t take notes.

I also remember that one of the revered justices was asleep at the time while a case was being argued in front of them.

Yea, really memorable. But, I was not clued in as I am now. Not sure who it was. It was a guy. And it was in the early 90’s. That’s all I can remember.

They have just lost the last bit of respect I had for them.

In my mind, their correct title is now

The Supremely Extreme Court of the United States

Again, I have the same level of frustration as you….
See you on a march!!

[slightlv]

79. Wow... I was almost afraid to open up the replies.

It wasn't until I got into bed last night and got to thinking... maybe I overshot my opinion here. I was so frustrated when I read that, and I knew my frustration came out in my reply. I thought maybe I'd get dinged for it. But I'm like you, Karma. I've done all I can think of to do. It's like what else am I suppose to do? I've gathered as many as I can to get to the polls, and what am I suppose to "entice" them with now? Scare them with Trump... yeah, right. That's no lie. But it seems like neither Biden nor the Democrats have our backs the way they should. They're just letting the Magats burn it all down around us. It's so frustrating. They don't have to have 60 votes to go on a Scream Fest to Twitter and Facebook. It only takes one or two, but enforce would be better... the media might actually make it news that way.

I like your new name for SCOTUS. I have my own... Supreme Extreme Religious Court. Since everything that passes through them will be seen through the screen of religion from now on.

[Karma13612]

91. So true!!

Every word!!

Sometimes the comments we worry about are our best ones!! Go figure.

[betsuni]

93. FDR and LBJ had supermajorities and a sane Republican Party. LBJ got civil rights legislation passed

with Republican support, could not "bully pulpit" Democrats opposed to it. 50-50 senate with Manchin and Sinema is NOT a supermajority. There is no bully pulpit. Teddy Roosevelt used that term to mean a good pulpit, as in "bully for you." The word means "good." It doesn't mean bullying or threats. Biden doesn't have supernatural powers to make people do anything like in an action movie.

[PoliticAverse]

31. Democrats don't have 50 votes for court expansion and are unlikely to have 50 votes...

even after the midterms.

[orangecrush]

34. "Sleepy Joe"?

Excuse me, but you just exposed yourself, and I don't believe a word of your "qualifications".

[old guy]

35. The President is governing like the moderate that he is.

He believes in being bi-partisan. He believes some repubs will come around because that's the way he is. In the end we will find out if he is right or wrong. I suspect he is wrong, but that's just cynical old me.

[Dorn]

74. So true, so sad

I don't think you are cynical, if you are as old as I you will remember truly moderate republicans (Nelson Rockefeller, Howard Baker) and how they were all gotten rid of the moneyed interests in the 1980s. Biden's thinking from a bygone era, it is sad he can't see reality as it is: we are all in the clutches of the billionaires and the near billionaires.

[Oneironaut]

36. It always was and will always be a horrible idea.

Adding 4 new justices won’t fix the rot in our system. Unless if you want 200 justices by 2028, this isn’t going to help us, and, will accelerate the US’s demise.

[Cheezoholic]

38. People can get pissed all they want

Just like said in his speech the other day, it's up to us. WE have to vote these assholes out. If we do, there will be no need to pack the court because congress would have the power to codify Roe amongst other things. Like many have said, the Supremes have bosses whether they like it or not. WE are the ultimate deciders. If we are willing to GOTV and give our representatives the power to check these religious nut jobs they can be ignored, Lincoln style.

Biden knows there is no way in hell he can pack the court right now, it will not and can't happen if he tried without trying to declare a hole lot of shit starting emergency crap that in the end would make him no different than his predecessor. If the people vote a mandate in the midterms, and overwhelmingly prove to the government this is what we want, we gave you the power now, I have no doubt he and congress would not just codify, but I believe they would cut the Supremes at the knees and not only pack the court but re-organize the entire federal judicial system ala Lincoln.

It's up to us and that's what Joe is saying. Preserving democracy via legal loopholes, legal tricks, is no way to preserve democracy. It must be preserved, in the end, by the people and for the people. I believe that, and I think thats where his heads at.

Damn near 80 million of us showed up in 2020 to do just that. The jobs not done. No excuses.

[Grins]

39. And why we continue to lose....

Democrats want to “reach across the aisle.”
They want “comity’” and “consensus,” and “bipartisanship.”

When all the Reich wants to do is kill them.

If the situation was reversed, the Reich-wing would do this without even thinking or hesitation. And damn the consequences.

[C Moon]

41. Another part of why we lose is because we don't stand behind our President and our elected officials

We are too critical of every little thing.

I saw someone on FaceBook (a liberal), after the SCOTUS decision, immediately criticizing the Democrats for sending out emails asking for contributions. Instead of being up in arms about what the right wing is doing, he was criticizing the Dems.

He was probably being sent email from organizations that are meant only to get donations—but instead of thinking about that, he was railing against the Dems for merely asking for donations after the decision.

Suck it up, and stand behind the Dems right now. The right wing are focusing on making President Biden look bad. Get your head on straight.

[calimary]

40. I love Joe Biden. But I DON'T love THIS!

We're actually doing an ask about this - expanding the Supreme Court to short-circuit the 6-3 knuckledragger dominance on there now.

President Biden isn't wrong about much, but he IS wrong about this.

[Cheezoholic]

42. How can he fix this

He's against packing the court because he can't, no way period. WE have to give him and congress the ability to do this. His current option to pack the court is a road even Lincoln would not have traveled. Give them the mandate in November and all of them will do what needs to be done.

[minstrel76]

50. Unfortunately, there is no fixing what was broken to begin with.

Think about it: If Biden tries to expand the court, say to 13, then the Repukes will just expand it again whenever they're in power. It will become a partisan ping-pong game that no-one can ever win. The same thing goes for trying to impeach and remove justices. If Democrats try to impeach and remove SCOTUS justices appointed by GOP presidents, then, when Rethugs take Congress again, they will find some way and excuse to impeach and remove justices appointed by Democratic presidents. Sure, any of these changes in the near term will help the party currently in power, but when the tide of power changes, these can all be reversed. Therefore, we need to fix the design flaws that are inherent in the SCOTUS that go all the way back to the framers of the Constitution. Yeah, I know there's a taboo for criticizing the Founding Fathers, but they're long dead and don't have to worry about life in the 21st Century, so sue me. IMHO, what we really need is a clearly worded and elucidated Constitutional Amendment that eliminates any ambiguity on term limits for SCOTUS justices, and the creation of a non-partisan commission for nominating SCOTUS justices, instead of the president. The Federalist Society and the GOP played this long game of rigging the SCOTUS because they perceived that SCOTUS justices appointed by Democrats were not using their Originalist legal philosophy and they were therefore granting rights that they felt were not explicitly granted in the Constitution, according to the language of the original framers, such as abortion, the right to birth control, the right to marry interracially, gay marriage, etc. My hope would be that, while not foolproof, such an amendment would help eliminate some of the politicization of the courts that have contributed to the extreme partisan division in this country. An Amendment is unrealistic, you might say? Well, it's realistic if Democrats everywhere get out and vote and if Democrats start winning more elections for a change. If it hasn't occurred to you by now that we have arrived in the place we are at because of non-Conservatives not voting, staying home during all elections, except for those during presidential years, or throwing their votes away by voting Third-Party, then I don't know if it ever will.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

53. How many rights will we lose before he changes his mind about this?

Hopefully, he knows something that we don't, because women, and the LGBT+ community, are terrified and terrorized right now regarding how many rights this fascist SCOTUS is capable of taking away from us any time they damn well please, leaving us without any legal recourse.

[pressbox69]

55. Maybe Floating the idea

isn't enough. Maybe the idea needs to be rammed down his throat. Maybe we need a strong woman candidate in 04 who isn't afraid to kick in the faces of SCOTUS Goon Squads and Republlklan terrorists because they are old buds and drinking mates. Maybe we need someone like Liz Warren or Michelle Obama who isn't afraid to work for and protect US.

[Karma13612]

77. I understand and agree

We need a really fire-breathing candidate for 2024.

Liz Warren was my dream and she didn’t do well. She unfortunately won’t get another chance. And Michelle has said on numerous occasions that she does not want to.

Too soon for AOC, in my opinion. Kamala is no longer a household name the way she needs to be. If Cheney was a Democrat WITH DEMOCRATIC beliefs, she would be great because she is getting a name for herself at the right time. I could see her running with someone like Kinsinger. But again, they are for the wrong team. And wrong ideals.

On our side, I love Katie Porter, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jamie Raskin, Val Demmings.

The next year is going to be very critical. If I had my eyes on the presidency, and was a Democratic female, I would start making a LOT of noise right now. And not let up until candidates started to announce their intention of running. I think we might be seeing right now the undercurrent of Biden not seeking re-election.

[malthaussen]

61. Gee, Joe, I'd be interested to know what your plan is, then.

It's not like the problem is going to go away.

-- Mal

[AllyCat]

64. Then I will support a Democrat who DOES support expanding the Court

because this aggression will not stand.

[The Grand Illuminist]

65. This has the same success rate to that when.....

FDR tried it.

[VarryOn]

66. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are elderly. Their days are numbered...

We just need to bide our time. Adding justices could cut against us. I'm good nine justices.

Another idea--cut the number to seven or five. Eliminate the last justices who were added. Yes, it would cut Justice Brown, but it would get Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch.

[Polybius]

84. Roberts is a very young "elderly" at 67 though

He could have 15-20 years left.

Also, you can't eliminate sitting Justices. They have lowered the number in the past, and it gets rid of no one. For example, if you set it to 7, it will stay at 9 and then 8 when one retires. Finally, it will go to 7 when another one steps down.

[PatrickforB]

67. I was deeply saddened and disappointed when Biden said he 'still respects' the Supreme

court in spite of it's overturning Roe v Wade, and making my daughters and granddaughters second class citizens with the stroke of a pen - women now have fewer rights than gun owners.

He is the LEADER of our party.

I'm pretty frustrated here.

Here's the Reuters link: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-looking-solutions-after-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-white-house-2022-06-25/

[Dorn]

69. Expand the court my ass / Make them elected by the people

Article III says there will be a court, it does not say how they are selected. That is congressional law, the court has become political; ok fine -- let's elect them: elect one a year for 6 year terms and let the political games continue.

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[bucolic_frolic]

78. That was not a categorical 'no'

[AntiFascist]

82. Biden is also Catholic...just sayin n/t

[JohnSJ]

86. and Biden's voting records in Congress was pro choice

[AntiFascist]

87. and where has that gotten us now? n/t

[JohnSJ]

90. If you are blaming Biden for the overturning of Roe, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that

2016 was was the year when the SC WAS at stake, and in those critical swing states, Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.

Just saying…….

The strategy needs to be winning enough of a majority in both Houses in the midterms. Until that happens, hypotheticals mean nothing

[JohnSJ]

85. Until we have a real majority, (Mancyand Sinema), it means very little. GOTV in large numbers in

November, where we have enough majorities in both Houses, and all options are open. Not just expanding the court, but potentially impeachment of judges for lying under oath, requiring SC judges to recuse themselves for conflicts of interest, etc

Think long term, not reactionary

If we have enough majorities in Congress, we can use pressure then to convince Biden

[IbogaProject]

88. Hopefully a head fake

I hope he's keeping his support to himself until we have enough votes. He doesn't want to anger proliferate more than necessary.

[eallen]

89. Does he have any say in the matter?

Doesn't Congress control that?

[Raster]

92. No he doesn't. Congress controls the size of the SCOTUS.

The President nominates the Justices and the Senate approves them.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before. To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats.

[FBaggins]

96. Lol... nope

The president can't do it on his own, but he certainly "has a say in the matter"

He signs the legislation that Congress passes.