• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It was literally in his power to expand the court and appoint uncorrupt judges before Dobbs happened.

    It was not.

    Congress would first have to remove the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.

    That was in congressional Democrats’ hands. But in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats, all of whom would need to actually vote with their party. Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever. We had the majority. Just enough Democrats preferred the return of coat hanger abortions to relegating a procedural relic of Jim Crow to the shitpile of history where it has always belonged.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      the cap set by the Judicial Act of 1969.

      That cap was one supreme court judge per circuit court. As there are 13 circuits now, it’s precedent FOR expanding the court, not against.

      in order to pass the Senate, we would have needed 60 Democrats

      Ah, the eternal “we can’t do the obviously right thing because of the filibuster” Dem leadership excuse. Turns out that, like most of their other excuses, that’s complete hogwash

      Or we would need to have a simple majority, at least 50 of whom would be willing to get rid of the filibuster forever.

      Again, not true. That’s just another “we are powerless to change anything because the system won’t let us” copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.

      To quote the article linked above:

      Like Dorothy in Oz, they’ve always had the power to get home. Unlike Dorothy, they’ve always known. They’ve just chosen not to use it.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Again, not true. That’s just another “we are powerless to change anything because the system won’t let us” copout from the party eternally protecting the status quo that is so lucrative for them.

        Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying. Democrats could have ended the filibuster with a simple majority, but they didn’t want to. They preferred allowing Republicans to win on abortion to getting rid of their procedural excuse for inaction.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          And I’m saying that they didn’t even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want. They don’t need 50 votes to permanently dismantle it when they can already do it at will on a case by case basis.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            And I’m saying that they didn’t even have to do THAT, they could just suspend it temporarily any time they want.

            My reading of the law differs from yours on this, but I believe we agree more broadly that Democrats desperately need to stop making excuses and get out of their own way.