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.

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s really a shame that so many seem to be clinging to a constitution that is close to 250 years old. You would think that some things would need to be updated over that period of time, but as I said, I’m from Europe…

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our constitution has been updated. Our current constitution is from the 90s. It’s just we update it in pain in the ass bits and pieces

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

        Of course, I am aware that the U.S. Constitution has been updated several times and that any changes are a difficult political process (this is the case in every democratic country). From a European point of view, it is just difficult to understand why, for example, majority voting has still not been introduced and so on. In our system, it is unthinkable that votes are effectively devalued because the majority in one state disagrees. I understand, of course, that that was necessary some 250 years ago, so that electors could be sent to Washington to represent the will of the people of their particular state. But is that still in keeping with the times? To me, it seems antiquated - as does the attempt to guarantee independent constitutional judges by appointing them for life and thus - in theory - making them independent of political influence. I think that reality has shown that this is nothing but wishful thinking. Otherwise, a supreme justice like Clarence Thomas, who is obviously not only bound by his conscience, would probably no longer be in office. I just think that self-regulation has never really been effective - not in politics, law, or business.

            • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Keep moving those goalposts.

              The president is in charge of managing the country, but he is beholden to the legislative and judicial branches. The president can’t unilaterally do much.

              How does the prime minister get elected in most countries? It’s typically because the population elects a representative body, and that body elects a PM. Most countries do not directly elect a PM.

              How do laws get passed in most countries. You elect a legislative branch and that legislative branch votes on laws.

              The vast majority of even the most democratic countries do not directly vote on much, because nobody wants that.

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

                That’s true. But no votes are lost in the election of a prime minister. People usually elect a party and the parties with the most votes in turn elect the prime minister (via various detours depending on the country). The prime minister is thus elected through a majority system: The party with the most votes usually provides the prime minister. Gerrymandering or something like that is therefore not necessary. In the U.S., however, the president is not elected by majority (how many votes a candidate got in total), but by electoral college, which votes according to how the majority in a state voted. This results in your vote being devalued if it does not match the majority in the state you live in. Here’s the difference: if you voted for a party to represent you, your vote would be counted even if you were in the minority in your home state. Under an electoral college system, that’s not the case: your vote is irrelevant if you’re in the minority in your home state. I can’t make sense of this other than on historical grounds: I think it used to be that elections would be held in a state and then a representative of the state, an electoral college, would ride into Washington and vote in the presidential election as the majority in the state from which he came. That doesn’t seem contemporary to me.

                • Arcka@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  While most states work that way, Maine and Nebraska are not winner-take-all and have split their votes more proportionally.

                • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It makes more sense if you look at the United States as a group of individual entities with a Federal level that helps coordinate between them. It’s more like the EU, and less like individual provinces.

                  Each state decides how to send its electors to vote for the president. Most of the states decided to send them as a winner take all batch of votes, but some decided to allow split votes.

                  It’s not a perfect system by far, but it makes sense in the context of what it is.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That was the context at the start of the country, it’s not really applicable anymore.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And? What’s your point? We’ve had several presidents in the last, what 30-40 years, who lost the popular vote but got to be president anyway because we decided some states matter more than others.

    • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I find it interesting that there are so many Europeans that have such strong opinions on the US, yet they don’t keep themselves informed on the same.

      The US Constitution has been updated many, many times since it was written.

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am aware of that. But essential things were obviously not changed at all. For example, in terms of majority voting. What speaks against it? Is there still a need for electors who have to ride to Washington on horseback?

      • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole thing? Has the whole thing been looked at and revised? Or are you counting each and every amendment as an “update”? That’s not an update to me. It’s an addition that ignored the many flaws with the way we run our country.

        • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s literally how the constitution is changed. You make an amendment that changes the constitution. If you wanted to change the whole thing in a single amendment, you can do just that.

          If you wanted to start from scratch and do the whole constitution over, you’d have the exact same set of steps to do that, unless it was done with an armed overthrow of the government. Then what you would have is a small group of people who ran that revolution would write a new constitution. And that would be unlikely to be any better than what is currently there.

          How exactly do you think we would get a new constitution otherwise?

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

            Sure, you’re not wrong. That is a change. But I don’t think that many people would call each and every amendment an update. If that’s your argument, though, the constitution hasn’t been updated in over fifty years. I’d say it’s due for a change.