Reining in the rogue court is a crucial goal with wide support from Americans across the political spectrum
āBetter late than neverā is a useful maxim in all of life and in politics as well. On Monday,Ā Joe Biden caught the ābetter late than neverā bug when he unveiled a series of proposals toĀ reform the US supreme court.
Those proposals come more than two and a half years after the US presidentās presidential commission on the supreme court issued itsĀ recommendations, and more than 40 years after BidenĀ calledĀ former president Franklin Delano Rooseveltās plan to impose term limits on the court āboneheadedā.
In 2020, during his quest for the White House, Biden again distanced himself from people who were pushing for significant institutional reform at the court.
How times have changed. That was before the courtĀ overruled Roe v Wade, theĀ ethics scandalsĀ of justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas came to light, and before the court gave the president almostĀ blanket immunityĀ from criminal prosecution.
Biden is?
Clearly youāre mistaken. The right-wing starts down this road a long time ago, and have only intensified their efforts. We wouldnāt even be having this conversation right now if they hadnāt blocked Obama from naming a justice, which was his rightful action as sitting President. All this shit with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts thatās finally gotten some attention is only having a light shined on it finally.
Mitch McConnell blocked Obama from nominating Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016 as āthe voters should decideā. Then he fast tracked Amy Coney Barrettās nomination in September 2020, despite being 6 months closer to an election than the last time he was in the exact same situation.
But please, tell me again how Democrats are politicizing the stolen court?
I meanā¦youāre just elaborating on what I just said. Canāt tell if youāre being sarcastic or not, but š¤·
Sometimes replies are concurrences or addendums instead of rebuttals.
Itās rare enough that itās understandable that one assume the worst by default, though.
The tone was rather confrontational.
Thatās true, but itās possible that it was directed at the article writer rather than the parent commenter. (If that were the case then it shouldāve been made more clear, but I know itās possible thatās what he meant even without clarification because Iāve made the same mistake before.)
It reads like it was meant to be a top level comment.
No, no, no. You see, the cons behaving badly is just situation normal and only right and natural.
If the Democrats were to even point their bad behavior out, never mind do anything to counter the actions of the cons, that is āpoliticizingā things.