Good issue for him to raise as a lame duck. Tho I doubt it will go anywhere, nice to say out loud what so many are thinking.
Depends on how the public perceives the Supreme Court. The last Gallup poll was last September, and 41% approved of how it was handling its job while 58% disapproved. Approval of the Supreme Court has been steadily declining since 2000. So a majority think there’s a problem, but it’s not an overwhelming majority. Make of that what you will, but I think it says more about the composition of the American public than anything else.
It has nothing at all to do with being fair, and almost everything to do with defeating a tangible enemy…and the Left is the tangible enemy in far too many minds, maybe moreso than the Russians, even. In their minds calling into question any election won by Democrats is fair, as is stacking school boards and gutting libraries.
The rules may need to be changed, but trying to do it from the top down is a fool’s game.
The Constitution is not the left.
Have I made any leftist proposal?
Would have been nice to do this back when the Dems held the House and the Senate.
This is just performative nonsense that will go nowhere.
It doesn’t matter what the fuck I think. In the eyes of the right, every proposal you have made is far-right-wing wackjob material. You keep vastly underestimating what is going on in rural America. As far as the Constitution is concerned it is followed about as closely as the Bible-What is in either is exactly what they are told and what they believe is in there. No less, and certainly no more.
I just thought of something: it’d be really fascinating if Roberts responded to this by doubling down on what the majority ruling claimed: “Oh, for God’s sake, this was a very narrow ruling! It does not mean the president above the law, and it never will mean the president is above the law! All of this discussion is completely disingenuous!”
I’d love to see Trump’s reaction.
So…you’ve well educated me that you are not a part of the problem?
Do we want to get back to the whole question of whether you’d support positive amendments and penalize representatives who won’t?
I’m not getting this whole “blaming them for my choices” deal.
Or, he could remind Biden of the Seal Team 6 option they find permissable! 
I doubt Roberts will stick his neck out that far.
The “Seal Team Six” option is not permissible if done by the wrong side. It will only be found permissible if done by the “right” side.
Moderating:
This is fast becoming the @Sage_Rat show. You’ve made your proposal. You don’t get to insist that everyone accept it and see it as you do. You’ve overwhelmed the thread. Maybe take a break.
Alternatively, I will break your proposal out into a separate thread. Let me know if you’d prefer that.
I agree that anything from Biden beyond “SCOTUS needs to follow ethics rules” before the election happens can damage Harris.
I have no allegiance to any particular proposal - as said at the top of my proposal, at various points through the thread, and as pointed out in the text you quoted. I’m pointing at flaws in negative thinking and nothing more.
If you want to split something out, it would be whether negative thinking (particularly as regards amendments and anti-corruption initiatives) gets you anywhere in politics and as a voter?
I will split the thread as I see fit. You can argue your point in your dedicated thread.
No, it was not. Fifty years ago conservatives were complaining about the ‘’‘judicial activism’‘’ of the Warren era of the court and complaining about decisions like Miranda, Griswold, and Roe.
Roe was passed under the Burger Court, with a conservative majority.
On the contrary, I think it raises an important issue for voters to consider in this upcoming election. With Dobbs, women have finally seen in a tangible way just how impactful decisions made by the Supreme Court can be for their welfare and bodily autonomy. It’s a big, big issue in this election. Biden’s actions shine a bright light on what must be done to make changes real changes. If it moves this needle even just a little toward restoring SCOTUS integrity, it will be a worthwhile effort on Biden’s part.
I am confident he will not propose anything that has the potential to hurt Harris or her chances.
My thought as well. There is clearly nothing that can be done about the Supreme court in the short (or likely even long) term. So the only purpose of this announcement is political.
The Roe v. Wade and presidential immunity decisions by the Supreme court are very unpopular and promising to do something about it is likely to give people a reason to vote even if the chances of it working are about the same as building a wall across the Southern border and making Mexico pay for it.
When was this “When the Dems held the House and the Senate” you refer to? Are you counting Manchin and Sinema as part of the “Senate control”? And even then, that was before some of the specific court cases that got the public strongly motivated about the Supreme Court. Before that, the Democrats held all three bodies for a matter of a few months, between Franken being seated and Ted Kennedy dying, and the priority then was the ACA. Before that, the last time was during the Clinton era.
By putting this forth right before the elections, it lets the Democrats say “You need to elect Democrats to the Presidency, House, and Senate so we can do something to fix this problem”.