this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
722 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

He cannot. There are no vacancies.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States&text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20stipulate,Justices%2C%20including%20one%20Chief%20Justice.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I've noticed this a lot on lemmy. People state things as an objective fact that are just completely wrong. They start with a false assumption and built their ideas on that. People seem to have virtually no understanding of how the civic process works.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, that is how people are ON THE INTERNET....it gives the confidently incorrect a megaphone.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree. It’s maddening. The way I challenge it is by citing sources to debunk the misinformation. Most people just block them, leading to unchecked misinformation for more passive users to read as facts.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That is the way to do it. Plenty of people parrot what they read. I am guilty of it because I can't research EVERYTHING EVER, but I can hear reliable information and spit it back out. If you take the time to post up receipts, people will vomit up your facts and you make the discourse better.

[–] blaine@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Didn't Democrats control the House and Senate for the first few years of his presidency? Looks like they failed to use the time they had very effectively. Why reward lazy behavior with another term?

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

50 votes that includes Joe Manchin, Sinema, etc in the Senate is not control. The last time they had an actual fillibuster proof majority they passed the ACA, which would have included a public option if they had another vote. And that period where they had control lasted a few months, not years. The idea that Democrats don't pass legislation when they aren't being blocked by the domestic terror cell they have to work alongside is completely ahistorical.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

50 votes that includes Joe Manchin, Sinema, etc in the Senate is not control.

With the majority they had, they had enough seats to do away with the filibuster forever.

The last time they had an actual fillibuster proof majority they passed the ACA, which would have included a public option if they had another vote.

Nonsense. They simply would have found a different senator to vote no. Ben Nelson was every bit as instrumental as Lieberman in killing the public option.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

So the obvious solution is give control to the party that’s systematically dismantling the protections of our rights?

[–] blaine@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

No. The solution is to dump Biden and try to get a candidate that can prevent that.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

It's not true though they're incorrect about the timeline.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

That said, Congress could have changed that during the first two years of Biden's presidency, but the Senate would need to change its rules to get rid of the filibuster to do so, and they didn't wanna.