LOS ANGELES – President Biden on Saturday night said he expects the winner of this year’s presidential election will likely have the chance to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court – a decision he warned would be “one of the scariest parts” if his Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, is successful in his bid for a second term.
And that’s an excellent segue to what I was going to bring up upstream: we only have so many resources to drive voters. There are plenty of relatable issues that can drive people to the polls so Trump doesn’t have another opportunity to appoint anyone. Removing SCOTUS lifetime appointments isn’t going to do it. But if we can keep a Democrat in the White House and control in Congress, we may still have lifetime appointments but at least there will be reasonably sane people in the court.
And before you say anything about a false choice fallacy, campaign resources and attention of the voting base are finite.
Term limits for supreme court justices is one of those issues to drive people to the polls, its a pretty popular idea. Heaven forbid democratic candidates actually try to win with popular ideas. They cant allow any reasons to support them other than not being republican.
Funny, I thought people are more likely to go to the polls over things that affect them and their families directly. Abortion and weed legalization being common examples. I’m assuming you have a source to back up the idea that supreme court justice term limits ranks up there in getting people to vote? Also, you do understand the difference between a “popular idea” and something that will motivate people to vote?
It all falls under court reform, the political viability isnt in question:
-amend the constution
-make a law restricting the courts ability to accept and decide cases
-pack the court
-retire aging justices
-have the senate subpoena clarence thomas and make him say why he won’t recuse himself from cases involving his billionaire friend
The only approach that ever works politically is the “all of the above” approach because as soon as you start taking things off the table the opposition can laser focus down the “reasonable options”. This isnt new:
thomas jefferson pioneered this strategy in the US where he kept agreeing slavery was immoral but it was “too hard” to free the slaves. In reality he loved owning people and designing his little slave town. The result of this tactic was it took a war to resolve slavery because politicians were too cowardly to address it.
What it means when something is too hard solve with politics, is that it needs to be solved with violence. What it doesn’t mean is that is that people will stop talking about it just because it “doesn’t seem politically viable”.
You have throw so many things at fox news and other propaganda outlets that they can’t just pick one and focus fire it into the ground with lies and fear. Something like an amendment will draw fire for sure but it lets all the other stuff sail by.