Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Sen. Warren decries the Supreme Court as illegitimate and demands action to "pack the court"   (mediaite.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, Senator Elizabeth Warren, United States, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court, Roe V. Wade, Jackson Women's Health Organization, United States Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2205 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2022 at 3:50 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



237 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-06-26 1:01:46 PM  
Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.
 
2022-06-26 1:06:22 PM  
1. She's not wrong.
2. Get it done.
 
2022-06-26 1:08:42 PM  
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MS)

Um...
 
2022-06-26 1:09:25 PM  

bloobeary: Get it done


President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.
 
2022-06-26 1:10:09 PM  

feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


Get somebody to challenge one of the ridiculous state laws restricting or forbidding abortion; have them appeal it all the the Supreme Court; and use that as a vehicle to make a new ruling that some element of the constitution makes unreasonable abortion restrictions unconstitutional. Something more substantial than "privacy" this time.

That is how Roe v. Wade became law in the first place, and how it was overturned. And that's also how the protections can be reinstated.
 
2022-06-26 1:10:33 PM  

Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.


Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...
 
2022-06-26 1:12:13 PM  

aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...


Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?
 
2022-06-26 1:16:07 PM  

Thoreny: aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...

Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?


It also depends upon the filibuster as well. You bet your ass that the GQP is gonna filibuster the shiat out of the bill. Without 60 votes changing how many justices are on the court is not legally possible.

The House will pass it no problem. So I'm not going to talk about that.
 
2022-06-26 1:17:56 PM  

Thoreny: aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...

Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?


If it came to his desk, I'm willing to bet he would sign it.
 
2022-06-26 1:32:19 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Thoreny: aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...

Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?

If it came to his desk, I'm willing to bet he would sign it.


If the proper pressure was applied, of course. So far everything he's said has indicated he's against such. But you are right, that doesn't mean he won't sign it.
 
2022-06-26 1:40:45 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 1:42:34 PM  

feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


Just find someone with standing, run the case up to the freshly packed court, and overturn the bad precedent.

/The right-wing dissenting opinion will be absolutely incandescent with rage.
 
2022-06-26 2:12:42 PM  

feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


That's exactly what happened.  They re-did settled law.
 
2022-06-26 3:52:18 PM  

feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


That is literally what just happened. That is literally how this works.
 
2022-06-26 3:52:38 PM  

bloobeary: 1. She's not wrong.
2. Get it done.


Sorry, Biden doesn't want to.
 
2022-06-26 3:53:07 PM  

mrshowrules: feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.

That's exactly what happened.  They re-did settled law.


It's victim bullying at this point.
 
2022-06-26 3:53:37 PM  
Nice short-term idea, but what if the GQP retakes the White House?
 
jvl [BareFark]
2022-06-26 3:53:44 PM  
If only she knew a Senator who could introduce an amendment legalizing abortion. And make the legalization sufficiently palatable that it's a slam dunk pass because taking the easy wins first is a good strategy.
 
2022-06-26 3:53:56 PM  

Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.


Then let him veto the bill.
 
2022-06-26 3:55:19 PM  
SCOTUS expansion will happen as soon as I settle down with Elizabeth Montgomery.
/not gonna happen, Liz
 
2022-06-26 3:55:44 PM  

feckingmorons: What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 3:55:51 PM  
Just a reminder, Joe Biden is Catholic. Also , Bob Casey is anti-choice.
 
2022-06-26 3:56:52 PM  
I mean, she's not wrong, but guess who ultimately gets to approve or deny any changes to the court?
 
2022-06-26 3:59:32 PM  
Yes, no shiat.  There's no other option after the farkery perpetrated by the GOP to stack the court with semi-stealth partisans.

We saw this coming a mile away, didn't we.  Every single one of Trump's nominees parroted the same non-answer regarding Roe, that it was "settled law" in the eyes of the Court (of which they were NOT yet a part) and should be given full consideration as such.

But the lawyer weasel words here told the story.  They all played the same semantics game, which leaves room for overturning precedent, as has been done, when THEY personally are on the bench.

NONE of them actually said "I will not overturn Roe".  It was the same, coached answer every time.

This was a coup by the GOP just as sure as J6 was.

America is under attack from the Nazi minority and we can't just stand by while they hijack Democracy with dirty tricks and lies.

Kill the filibuster.
Expand the court.
Pass voter rights.
Destroy gerrymandering.
Overturn Citizens United.
Never let the Nazi GOP win another election.
 
2022-06-26 4:00:07 PM  

udhq: I mean, she's not wrong, but guess who ultimately gets to approve or deny any changes to the court?


Joe Manchin?
 
2022-06-26 4:01:15 PM  

aleister_greynight: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MS)

Um...


hey, we can still dream of such things...
 
2022-06-26 4:02:07 PM  

austerity101: bloobeary: 1. She's not wrong.
2. Get it done.

Sorry, Biden doesn't want to.


Biden is not the problem!

To do this, we need more liberal seats in the senate, and can't loose any in the house.

If this is something people really want done, they need to focus on getting liberal candidates into the senate and house.

The people who vote 3rd party or decline to vote at all "because democrats don't keep their promises" are part of the problem.

/want to vote 3rd party?  Look into getting ranked choice, instant runoff or approval voting methods in your state.
//statistically, the current system will always favor supporting "the lessor of two evils" in a 2 party system.
///unless we change the voting system, a 3rd party can only replace one of the two major parties, it can never have a significant 3rd party representation in the government.
 
2022-06-26 4:02:22 PM  

Bovine Diarrhea Virus: SCOTUS expansion will happen as soon as I settle down with Elizabeth Montgomery.
/not gonna happen, Liz


Fark user imageView Full Size


/unf
 
2022-06-26 4:03:38 PM  
We should have elected her.  We really farking should've.  Her, or Bernie.
 
2022-06-26 4:04:15 PM  

Thoreny: Thoreny: aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...

Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?

It also depends upon the filibuster as well. You bet your ass that the GQP is gonna filibuster the shiat out of the bill. Without 60 votes changing how many justices are on the court is not legally possible.

The House will pass it no problem. So I'm not going to talk about that.


The House isn't involved at all.  The Democrats filibustered in 2017 to prevent Gorsuch from getting a vote in the Senate so Mitch McConnell and the GQP eliminated the filibuster for voting on SCOTUS nominees (the "nuclear option").  That rule is still in place.  There's nothing stopping this from going forward however I suspect the nomination would still fail.  Coalfinger and/or Sinema will claim precedent and vote against it.  Unless he gets their OK ahead of time, Biden will not make the nomination.
 
2022-06-26 4:05:00 PM  
 
2022-06-26 4:06:15 PM  
I notice Democrats keep coming up with ideas that will never actually work instead of creating a bill which will be broad but specific enough that even moderate Republicans will be on board, ie: the protection of a mother's life*, rape or incest, and protection of their rights to seek private medical advice* for both the patient and provider.

*note: these pieces of language may be the key, because a doctor and patient are THE ONLY people who get to make that determination, and frankly *any* pregnancy can go wrong, so any woman should have the ability to terminate early without need to know *why*
 
2022-06-26 4:06:20 PM  

Epicedion: udhq: I mean, she's not wrong, but guess who ultimately gets to approve or deny any changes to the court?

Joe Manchin?


You know who threw out the change when FDR tried to expand the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court.

And this time I'm not even sure it would be 6-3.
 
2022-06-26 4:07:02 PM  
Another person who thinks that the Federal Government should be strengthened "to protect our rights" is shocked to find out the Federal Government decides which rights to protect.
 
2022-06-26 4:07:39 PM  

Thoreny: aleister_greynight: Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.

Changing the number of Justices would take an action from the Senate...

Of course as it is written by law that there can only be nine. Senate could increase it but if Biden is going to veto it what's the point?


I say we apply the "Roberts Precedent" to anything that needs to be done to strengthen democracy in this country.
 
2022-06-26 4:07:55 PM  

GlenninSac: SCOTUS has already been packed:

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=839500

Time to

[Fark user image 610x217]

Information here:

https://demandjustice.org/priorities/supreme-court-reform/


From that link:

By participating, you consent to recurring autodialed marketing messages from Demand Justice to the phone number you provide. No consent required to buy. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms of Service & Privacy Policy apply.

Sorry, dude.  I already get enough spam.  Get back to me with an actual petition, and not a data harvesting operation.
 
2022-06-26 4:08:29 PM  

feckingmorons: Well, that is too late.   What are they going to do, redo the case?   That isn't how things work.


Even prominent democrats are now openly stating the court has no legitimacy and encouraging defiance of its rulings.

It may not work with abortion, but the Court still has an important case on EPA regulatory authority coming up. Many are predicting the Court will use the decision to overreach and declare the administrative state unconstitutional. If it does, I'm guessing congress looks at the Court sideways, shrugs, and instructs the EPA to keep doing what it's doing.
 
2022-06-26 4:08:44 PM  

puffy999: I notice Democrats keep coming up with ideas that will never actually work instead of creating a bill which will be broad but specific enough that even moderate Republicans will be on board, ie: the protection of a mother's life*, rape or incest, and protection of their rights to seek private medical advice* for both the patient and provider.

*note: these pieces of language may be the key, because a doctor and patient are THE ONLY people who get to make that determination, and frankly *any* pregnancy can go wrong, so any woman should have the ability to terminate early without need to know *why*


There's no such thing as a moderate Republican
 
2022-06-26 4:09:10 PM  

udhq: Epicedion: udhq: I mean, she's not wrong, but guess who ultimately gets to approve or deny any changes to the court?

Joe Manchin?

You know who threw out the change when FDR tried to expand the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court.

And this time I'm not even sure it would be 6-3.


I think it's time for Congress to try.

And if the Supreme Court denies CONGRESS? States, and the Federal government, can just go right ahead and forget what *this court* instructs until all of the members retire or are impeached.
 
2022-06-26 4:09:22 PM  
I like Liz, but in a way she's always a day late and a dollar short. She knows what's up, but she gets played overall. She got played by Biden during the primaries (as did Bernie).

This isn't exactly her fault, but as a politician it's a weakness.

She's right, but like with other things she's right about, she doesn't have the power to change it and nor do other progressives (like Bernie). They aren't a big enough block and aren't unified enough.

Honestly? I think if the majority in the this country wants democracy, they're not going to get it under the current system. The Senate should be abolished or restricted down to an advisory body (like the House of Lords in the UK). I don't see how this can be done.
 
2022-06-26 4:09:47 PM  

Persnickety: The House isn't involved at all


For expanding SCOTUS it is. There is a law that limits it to 9 justices. They have to change that and that involves the House.
 
2022-06-26 4:10:53 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: There's no such thing as a moderate Republican


There are a few who'd vote to codeify the above. Of course, a couple of them won't be running for office again, and a couple of them will be losing their next elections, so Democrats would have to try to get someone like boy raper or girl raper on board.
 
2022-06-26 4:11:56 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: puffy999: I notice Democrats keep coming up with ideas that will never actually work instead of creating a bill which will be broad but specific enough that even moderate Republicans will be on board, ie: the protection of a mother's life*, rape or incest, and protection of their rights to seek private medical advice* for both the patient and provider.

*note: these pieces of language may be the key, because a doctor and patient are THE ONLY people who get to make that determination, and frankly *any* pregnancy can go wrong, so any woman should have the ability to terminate early without need to know *why*

There's no such thing as a moderate Republican


Democrats
 
2022-06-26 4:12:06 PM  

adamatari: She got played by Biden during the primaries (as did Bernie).


That's a funny way of saying "all of the moderates dropped out at the same time and backed Biden."

And I'm fine with how Biden has done. Not so much his AG pick...
 
2022-06-26 4:13:31 PM  
It's not farking "packing" the court!  It's expanding the damned court.  The former makes it sound like it's some cheat or something nefarious.  It's not.  It's what should have happened long ago.
 
2022-06-26 4:14:06 PM  
pack the court

Exactly how? Biden cant wave his magic wand and suddenly there are 15 Justice positions. Even if it were that easy, the next R in office will wave the same wand and now we have 25 Justices. There's not enough votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Republican senators will be walking on their mother's graves to be the one to slam the brakes on this one, it will play well for their base at home.

Unless subby and Warren are suggesting that some Justices get retired early.
 
2022-06-26 4:14:43 PM  

Thoreny: bloobeary: Get it done

President appoints people to SCOTUS. Senate only approves/disproves of them. Biden isn't onboard with SCOTUS expansion.


How short your memory. Senate apparently has taken on the roll of deciding if the president's pick will even be considered. That should have never been allowed to happen.
 
2022-06-26 4:15:50 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Even if it were that easy, the next R in office will wave the same wand and now we have 25 Justices


Thats not how it works.

The max amount of Justices are codified in law. In order to change it, it must go thru the same process as all other laws.

The next GQP President will have to change the law again to increase it, and that requires a House that will probably still be Democratic.
 
2022-06-26 4:16:44 PM  

jvl: If only she knew a Senator who could introduce an amendment legalizing abortion. And make the legalization sufficiently palatable that it's a slam dunk pass because taking the easy wins first is a good strategy.


Except the SCotUS could still strike that down under the same states rights issue?

I say subpoena all the documentation behind the decision making. Emails, everything. Communications with "The Family", The Heritage Foundation, a statistically significant mention of God, then it's a poisoned anti-first amendment ruling. Start the impeachments.
 
2022-06-26 4:16:51 PM  
1. Pass court expansion
2. Filibuster every Biden nomination
3. Wait until GOP president
4. Pack the court with more right-wing loonies
 
Displayed 50 of 237 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.