Joe Biden worries that the “extreme” US supreme court, dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.

“I worry,” the president told ProPublica in interview published on Sunday. “Because I know that if the other team, the Maga Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”

“Maga” is shorthand for “Make America great again”, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. Trump faces 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats but nonetheless dominates Republican polling for the nomination to face Biden in a presidential rematch next year.

In four years in the White House, Trump nominated and saw installed three conservative justices, tilting the court 6-3 to the right. That court has delivered significant victories for conservatives, including the removal of the right to abortion and major rulings on gun control, affirmative action and other issues.

The new court term, which starts on Tuesday, could see further such rulings on matters including government environmental and financial regulation.

  • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a power that belongs to any branch except through a constitutional amendment. The Constitution says life during good behavior.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You may want to actually read the Constitution one day. It makes no mention of “life”. Here’s the text of 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.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you have any basis in fact for that assertion? If it’s not controlled by the constitution than Congress can set a limit.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right? Fucking hell…

          If I’m so ignorant of the American democratic system, when I’m not even American myself and was never really educated on the system, would it bother people to explain to me why what I ask is not possible instead of throwing insults?

          The comments in this thread are appalling.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While technically true it’s irrelevant as the constitution does not specify any term limits. So yeah - reddit-tier nit-picking over a detail while missing the entire point.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Technically true? Well, what the other person said was entirely false. It’s not nitpicking when someone says that the constitution says justices have lifetime appointments and it actually doesn’t say that.

              It becomes relevant very quickly when you want to change the system. An act of Congress requires a majority vote and signature by the president, fairly simple. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both chambers and ratification by 3/4 of the states (or a convention by the states).

              • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Congress cannot impose SCOTUS term limits by statute. For one, Congress lacks enumerated authority to regulate SCOTUS. For another, even if they did, SCOTUS interprets the constitution to mean life terms, which means any simple statute Congress passes is reviewed… by SCOTUS… as facially unconstitutional.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The Constitution is silent as to the number of justices, Congress has determined how many supreme Court justices there will be. That number has been changed over time by Congress. Term limits are no different.

                  If the supreme Court wants to go that route, it is already been established that Congress can expand the number of justices. Congress can simply expand the number of justices, seat those justices, and then change the terms for Supreme Court justices with the new members voting in favor of the constitutionality of that change.

                  Even impeaching every Supreme Court Justice would be quicker and easier than the constitutional amendment. Congress unquestionably has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.