Yes, that’s the point, Bill!

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    “If they win, that is exactly what will happen, and it only takes a majority vote and the signature of the President,” they wrote, pointing to a comment from Harris, who reportedly has said she is “open” to a conversation about increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

    Oh god no, not a majority vote.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Wait a minute, Congress and the President exercising their constitutional authority!?!

      Oh my God sound the alarms!

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes, Barr. Having conservatives on our highest court, have undermined the meaning of American justice, and thus removing them and keeping them out is a good long term solution, intended by term limits and oversight.

    • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Had they behaved and acted like the reasoned juris doctors that they are trained to be, then they wouldn’t have brought this on themselves.

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen that much projection in a single article before.

    Essentially every single thing that he accuses the left of planning to do is actually something that the right has already done, and is in fact one of the reasons that reform is necessary.

    The most frustrating part of it is that it’s not simply that he self-evidently has no integrity and no principles, but that he’s a short-sighted moron. Like every useful idiot in every authoritarian coup ever, he’s defending the autocrats simply because their actions currently align with his shallow self-interest, and is completely oblivious to the fact that they could just as easily (and sooner or later will) oppose his interests, and by then, in part specifically because of his shallow stupidity, it’ll be too late to do anything about it.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Bill Barr is not the least bit stupid nor short-sighted. He is not a useful idiot. He knows exactly what he is: a member of and functionary for the capitalist class, and he knows exactly what he’s doing: fighting a class war against the working class. Autocrats’ interests always have and always will align with the interests of the capitalist class.

  • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    I would really like to see our supreme court filled with neutral people. Someone that will side with the law, not religion, not party lines. It’s really what we should have but clowns are going to clown.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      In theory that’s how it works already. In practice, there is currently no disadvantage to appointing partisan judges and no system in which to objectively measure partisanship of a candidate. What that means is that there will always be partisan parties appointing partisan judges and there will always be candidates who claimed to be neutral who will be either accused of or proven to be partisan anyway.

      In the current system true neutrality on the bench does not exist

      • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Pretty easy to find out if they’re religious though. Getting rid of that would help quite a bit. A system to hold them accountable for being asshats would be great too.

  • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s journalistic malpractice to write an entire piece on expanding the court quoting Bill Barr without even once mentioning the corruption that got us here.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.

    • “Chief” “Justice” John Roberts
  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    These judges are supposed to be impartial, Bill. They shouldn’t ascribe to any party, and they definitely shouldn’t do it publicly. Now, what’s going on here in reality is way worse than what I just said.

  • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Eh, it’d be a good step in the right direction if they did stack the court (though term limits and a code of conduct are laughable half-measures at best), but I have my doubts the dems will do anything. If they sincerely believed that the american right wanted to end democracy and put dem politicians in camps (to be clear, they’re fine with other people being in camps), one would assume they’d be using that newfound presidential immunity to start drone striking “threats to the republic”.

    Edit: oh and obviously whatever tools the dems use, the republicans will use more ruthlessly as they care far, far less about optics. Might as well play to win.