1522
submitted 10 months ago by Veedem@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 19 points 10 months ago

Good luck with that. Republicans like it as it currently is and won't allow anything to change that.

As soon as there is a Democrats majority though, they'll be spewing bile and demand that some bill gets pushed through that allow term limits...

[-] WiLiV@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

I have three words for you: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To refresh your memory, Obama asked her to retire so that he could appoint a young liberal justice who could sit the court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, that geriatric bag of bones clung to power until her death. Guess who's term she died under, and who got to appoint her replacement? Oh yeah, the big Don. So now because of that we have a conservative court for the foreseeable future.

This is a smoke and mirrors political move.

[-] TeddE@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Too true. Since the Republicans can't organize a speaker of the house at the moment, I imagine we'll see a lot of pie-in-the-sky style legislation come through Senate Democrats in the next few days. It will look great to have a bunch of action on the books to please their most extreme liberal elements for the next election cycle, but with the deadlock in the house, there's little change any of it would become effective law.

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Why would they? A move like this directly benefits democrats. I promise democrats would not be pushing for this if they had the majority. This is a political strategy, not a quest for just governance.

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 13 points 10 months ago

Actually it benefits everyone. There are a ton of reasons why this should be a bipartisan issue, but expecting people to think long-term is, of course, a fool's errand. I also think that most people, including most politicians, haven't really educated themselves on the subject and haven't really thought it through in terms of what it would actually do.

[-] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Quiet now with your rational long term thinking.

[-] TheOriginalGregToo@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago

You think Democrats would feel any different if they held a majority?

Look at your beloved RBG. She sure didn't want to give up her appointment...

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

My beloved? What are you talking about

[-] TheOriginalGregToo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I'm talking about how it's always those who are at a disadvantage that cry foul the loudest. In this case Democrats want term limits because they're currently in the SCOTUS minority and are looking for ways to shift things to their favor. Yet when they're in the majority, suggesting something like this would be seen as a miscarriage of tradition or some other such nonsense. For once I'd love to see Democrats take an ethical stand when it doesn't advantage them. Push for term limits when you have the majority.

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
1522 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4291 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS