Reining in the rogue court is a crucial goal with wide support from Americans across the political spectrum

“Better late than never” is a useful maxim in all of life and in politics as well. On Monday, Joe Biden caught the “better late than never” bug when he unveiled a series of proposals to reform the US supreme court.

Those proposals come more than two and a half years after the US president’s presidential commission on the supreme court issued its recommendations, and more than 40 years after Biden called former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s plan to impose term limits on the court “boneheaded”.

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 court overruled Roe v Wade, the ethics scandals of justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas came to light, and before the court gave the president almost blanket immunity from criminal prosecution.

  • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Mitch McConnell blocked Obama from nominating Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016 as “the voters should decide”. Then he fast tracked Amy Coney Barrett’s 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?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Sometimes replies are concurrences or addendums instead of rebuttals.

        It’s rare enough that it’s understandable that one assume the worst by default, though.

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

            That’s true, but it’s possible that it was directed at the article writer rather than the parent commenter. (If that were the case then it should’ve been made more clear, but I know it’s possible that’s what he meant even without clarification because I’ve made the same mistake before.)