• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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 Supreme Court of the United States&text=The Constitution does not stipulate,Justices%2C including one Chief Justice.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

      • Freefall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

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

    • Blaine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

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

        • Blaine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

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

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.