2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Shadowferal]

Term limits for the Supreme Court are pretty much impossible as it would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would require both a supermajority of votes in both the House and the Senate along with 38 states and unless a LOT of states flip, it is pretty much a dead deal. The only other way would be through a Constitutional Convention and that opens up a whole other bag of worms.

Lets be clear in this regard, the male half of the SC doesn't want a Biden win. They sure as hell don't want any increase in seats by dems.
Yea, I agree, serious consequences for an SC judge isn't likely to happen, but they'll sweat the next 2 years.

[Nymrohd]

Rep. AOC: President Biden has made clear that he is in this race. The matter is closed. Biden is our nominee. He is in this race and I support him. He is running against Donald Trump, who is a man with 34 felony convictions. Not a single Republican has asked for Donald Trump to not be the nominee. I'm here to win in November

I have this feeling the rally behind Joe is already starting. Ooph!

Now I didn't expect AOC or any other Squad members to burn it down but open public statement giving almost "no matter what" statement, might show the Democrats understand Biden will not leave unless this becomes real messy.

See here is the thing. I get how the media wants to talk about Biden being replaced. It such a solid clickbait. But the fact that there were several Democrats who fed the news cycle is just disgusting on them. No party discipline for stupid media whores so close to an election. Everyone who went public with comments like that in this period should get a primary challenge. I can say whatever shit I want because I'm on the other side of the Atlantic. Media will say it cause they make money out of it. But actually seated Democrat representatives? Take them to the backyard and make them dig their own graves. Good for AOC to show what is needed.

[Gorsameth]

I remain a fence-sitter on this issue. On the one hand: what you said. On the other, the next time the GOP got into office--and they would, never underestimate the stupidity of American voters--they could just use the precedent as an excuse to do the same or worse.

Granted they haven't needed an excuse before to do any of the awful things they've done, so I guess that dismantles my opposition.

Reseating yes, but the more popular line is expanding the court with more seats, and yes the Republicans can do the same thing. That is part of the point, if both sides keep just adding more seats to create a majority then the entire court stops working and both sides have to actually come together to find a new solution.

America suffers from such massive inertia when trying to reform any part of it that sometimes the only way to get reform through is to destroy what exists now.

[Nymrohd]

Term limits for the Supreme Court are pretty much impossible as it would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would require both a supermajority of votes in both the House and the Senate along with 38 states and unless a LOT of states flip, it is pretty much a dead deal.

The only other way would be through a Constitutional Convention and that opens up a whole other bag of worms.

Would legislating the number of seats also require a constitutional amendment? I understand the current number was defined by statute.

[Gorsameth]

See here is the thing. I get how the media wants to talk about Biden being replaced. It such a solid clickbait. But the fact that there were several Democrats who fed the news cycle is just disgusting on them. No party discipline for stupid media whores so close to an election. Everyone who went public with comments like that in this period should get a primary challenge. I can say whatever shit I want because I'm on the other side of the Atlantic. Media will say it cause they make money out of it. But actually seated Democrat representatives? Take them to the backyard and make them dig their own graves. Good for AOC to show what is needed.

Why is it disgusting to have the belief that someone other then Biden would be better?
Are they never allowed to talk about it? there was little talk about it before the debate because while Biden has been off a little before, the debate was a big flashing neon sign.
The convention hasn't happened yet, Biden is not the official candidate yet. If you want to replace him, now is the time to talk about it.

After the convention, once Biden is the official candidate? yes you suck it in and keep your mouth shut. But if no one else allowed to talk about who the candidate should be before their are official, when do we get to talk about it?

[Benggaul]

if both sides keep just adding more seats to create a majority then the entire court stops working and both sides have to actually come together to find a new solution.

You know, people keep saying this for a plethora of reasons the past several years but thus far that has yet to really prove out. That's part of the reason this Congress has passed the fewest bills in...gosh I don't even know how long. 65 bills this Congress compared to 300+ last Congress (and over 700 back in the early 70's).

There's no real evidence to suggest that would change over rampant expansion of the SCOTUS. Just another arms race of partisan justices.

[Shadowferal]

Would legislating the number of seats also require a constitutional amendment?

Can Democrats Expand the Supreme Court and How Likely Is it?

Precedents prove that the size of the Supreme Court can be changed. But will it? The problem is not a technical one.

"It takes only legislation, as in it does not require a constitutional amendment," explained Gertner. "Someone would have to propose legislation expanding the court. The legislation would then have to be approved by the House and approved by the Senate."

"In the Senate, there will be a problem because the Democrats are not united on expanding the court, and even if they were, there would be a filibuster," Gertner said. "And so there are technical hurdles here. They would need 60 votes as opposed to 51 votes to expand the court. So the chances of that happening in this session are not high."

"The legislation would have to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president," he said.

[Gorsameth]

Would legislating the number of seats also require a constitutional amendment? I understand the current number was defined by statute.

There is a law putting it at 9, and Congress has power over the size and structure of the SCOTUS. All it takes is a new law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

[Nymrohd]

Why is it disgusting to have the belief that someone other then Biden would be better?
Are they never allowed to talk about it? there was little talk about it before the debate because while Biden has been off a little before, the debate was a big flashing neon sign.
The convention hasn't happened yet, Biden is not the official candidate yet. If you want to replace him, now is the time to talk about it.

After the convention, once Biden is the official candidate? yes you suck it in and keep your mouth shut. But if no one else allowed to talk about who the candidate should be before their are official, when do we get to talk about it?

Yes, they are never allowed to talk about it. It's a party. Get a party line, follow the party line. And if you wanted to replace him, two years ago was the time to talk about it, not NOW. I mean if you want to lose these elections, go ahead. Give the media talking heads against Biden when you have no evidence that it is even likely he will be replaced. Hey Trump will be elected but at least you'll trend on X for a day!

[Malkiah]

Why is it disgusting to have the belief that someone other then Biden would be better?

for the same reason it's never acceptable to talk about gun regulation in the wake of a mass shooting: because the people saying that have no defense for the way things are but they don't want to talk about it, and so use any excuse they imagine is quasi-legitimate sounding to shut down any conversation on the topic.

[Nymrohd]

Can Democrats Expand the Supreme Court and How Likely Is it?

Precedents prove that the size of the Supreme Court can be changed. But will it? The problem is not a technical one.

"It takes only legislation, as in it does not require a constitutional amendment," explained Gertner. "Someone would have to propose legislation expanding the court. The legislation would then have to be approved by the House and approved by the Senate."

"In the Senate, there will be a problem because the Democrats are not united on expanding the court, and even if they were, there would be a filibuster," Gertner said. "And so there are technical hurdles here. They would need 60 votes as opposed to 51 votes to expand the court. So the chances of that happening in this session are not high."

"The legislation would have to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president," he said.

Ah if it needs 60 votes in the Senate it's improbable for either party.

[Benggaul]

After the convention, once Biden is the official candidate? yes you suck it in and keep your mouth shut. But if no one else allowed to talk about who the candidate should be before their are official, when do we get to talk about it?

I suppose I could go along with that for the most part, but generally when it comes to an incumbent it's always been a bit of a taboo given that incumbency grants a built-in boost and neither party wants to jeopardize that.

[gondrin]

Would legislating the number of seats also require a constitutional amendment? I understand the current number was defined by statute.

The number seats are not specified but the length of term. However, Article 3, Section 1 states "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."

While it doesn't specify actual lifetime appointments, it also states they cannot be removed unless they commit a crime or something of the sort.

[Nymrohd]

for the same reason it's never acceptable to talk about gun regulation in the wake of a mass shooting: because the people saying that have no defense for the way things are but they don't want to talk about it, and so use any excuse they imagine is quasi-legitimate sounding to shut down any conversation on the topic.

It's too late to have the discussion. You don't even have candidates ffs. No one has even started a rumour they might be interested. You are not actually presenting ANY solution, you are just whining.

[Gorsameth]

Yes, they are never allowed to talk about it. It's a party. Get a party line, follow the party line. And if you wanted to replace him, two years ago was the time to talk about it, not NOW. I mean if you want to lose these elections, go ahead. Give the media talking heads against Biden when you have no evidence that it is even likely he will be replaced. Hey Trump will be elected but at least you'll trend on X for a day!

So they should have known 2 years ago Biden was going to have a mental breakdown during an early debate and appear much more mentally 'troubled' then previously assumed?

Wow, I didn't know time travel was a requirement for deciding a political candidate.

[Benggaul]

So they should have known 2 years ago Biden was going to have a mental breakdown during an early debate and appear much more mentally 'troubled' then previously assumed?

...Mental breakdown? Hyperbolic.

[Gorsameth]

Ah if it needs 60 votes in the Senate it's improbable for either party.

The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a constitutional requirement.
And senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote.

Wouldn't be the first time it was discussed to just get rid of it.

[Nymrohd]

So they should have known 2 years ago Biden was going to have a mental breakdown during an early debate and appear much more mentally 'troubled' then previously assumed?

Wow, I didn't know time travel was a requirement for deciding a political candidate.

And do they have an actionable alternative to Biden when they go out and give the GOP talking points?

[shimerra]

...Mental breakdown? Hyperbolic.

Seriously. At some point I have to start to wonder if people like Gorsameth are gobbling up the Republican propaganda just as much as the Magas.

And do they have an actionable alternative to Biden?

Is this the part where that one poster says Michelle Obama again despite the fact she has zero fucking desire to run and is therefore useless regardless of her polling? I'll also remind people that polling for a theoretical run and when actually running are very different.


Barring the political equivalent of the second coming the second a new candidate is actually chosen they're going to get slammed and have some serious fluctuations in the polling. 90% chance they'll get pummeled as hard or harder than Biden is now just because half of you seem to forget that the act of switching is going to be played as bad by Republicans, because to a lot of people it will look bad as much as it will look good to some. And with how diligently ya'll keep falling for the Republican bait like claiming a bad debate performance is a mental break down I have zero faith the rest of the nation is any smarter than those of you drafting those posts.

And no one in this thread is yet to suggest a single person able and willing to run that

[Gorsameth]

And do they have an actionable alternative to Biden?

Harris. She is already VP. easy simple.
"but she is a black women'.
Sure, lets vote for a mentally declining 81 year old because that is somehow a better option then someone of colour or with ovaries.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously. At some point I have to start to wonder if people like Gorsameth are gobbling up the Republican propaganda just as much as the Magas.

Yes, I am a terrible person for wanting the leader of the US to be mentally 100% (or as much as anyone can be)