Not to be morbid, but that’s what got Johnson elected the next year, so…

You don’t think proposing SCOTUS reform is going to help Republicans, do you?

It’s helpful not totally replace the executive branch every four years if you don’t have to

Well, they still represent their party, so their actions could still affect an election. An embarrassing lame duck session would screw the next party nominee.

deleted by creator

Would be so much worse… Think about any type of project or policy that takes more than 4 years to complete (and longer to see tangible benefits from).

It’s already bad enough having a GOP president come in every 8 years to undo most of the good things their Democratic predecessor accomplished (with Reagan removing Carter’s solar panels from the White House roof being the archetype).

Imagine having that pendulum swing every 4 years. Literally nothing that takes longer than 4 years would ever get done.

Mexico does that! It doesn’t look super common but it’s a thing.

Why would he do that before the election? It’s still the same party, and him doing that would do nothing but hurt Kamala at this point. The smart move is to walk the tightrope for a few more months.

Yeah I get it, it sucks that American politicians can’t just say certain things without tanking their career and destroying their political future. It’s fucked up and gross, but it’s real.

A lot of people are talking like this is a done deal, but I’ve seen enough elections at this point to know that a million impossible to predict things can (and likely will) happen between now and November.

As much as you might want the Democratic party to shout support for Palestinians from the rooftops, the current reality is that we need to continue to be very careful. If you actually care about Palestinian lives beyond using them as political pawns, then unfortunately we need to play the game until November.

Because the alternative is an unacceptable outcome for the Palestinian people.

I’ll probably get downvoted for saying it, but it doesn’t make it less true: Harris could behave exactly the same toward Israel as Biden, after being elected, and she would still be the only choice this election.

I know there are plenty of genuine people here, but so much of the “genocide Joe” rhetoric was such obvious astroturfing. Or at least began that way…

But we live in a world of cause and effect. Regardless of what happens between now and then there are a few possible outcomes for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But objectively, by a long shot, the worst is if Donald Trump and the GOP (with the hands of the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, John Birch Society, probably several lame clubs named after Ayn Rand bullshit, firmly up its keister like a goddam Muppet) take the presidency and immediately give Netanyahu carte blanche to “do what needs to be done” there. Which is what he/they will do.

If you think things are bad now, a Trump win would be signing the death warrant for the Palestinian people in the Levant. And every so-called “progressive” that stayed home because of Biden’s stances on Israel will have the blood of millions of dead Palestinians on their hands.

I consider myself to be a progressive, but the complete lack of pragmatism I’ve seen from other so-called progressives lately has been atrocious. So I hope it was mostly astroturf.

Whenever I see a politician mention anything about a constitutional amendment, I immediately stop reading.

Shit ain’t happening… We wouldn’t be able to pass an amendment saying “Pizza is yummy” because Republicans would refuse to agree with Democrats. They would actually stop eating pizza altogether because of it. There would be a movement to outlaw pizza because it’s grooming our kids (stupid sexy pizza).

I was trying to think of something silly and outlandish, and as I was typing this, I realized… This isn’t even that far out of the realm of possibility at this point. It’s like legitimately difficult to think of something too far-fetched for this reality. It wouldn’t be the first pizza-related issue on the right (ahem, Pizzagate?). Or the second (I just remembered the stupid “pizza is a vegetable” bullshit).

The looking glass ain’t shit, we went through it years ago. We’re at the end of “2001: A Space Odyssey” with Pink Floyd’s Echoes playing in sync with it. If we’re lucky, we’ll soon make it through the psychedelic spaghettification, and we will get to watch ourselves as a boring old man before becoming a giant space fetus…

Sorry, got kind of sidetracked there what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, Jupiter and beyond the infinite…

(Spoiler alert? Lol I couldn’t spoil the end of that film if I tried).

It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.

While technically true, countries with a proper constitution that is upheld by the judiciary, legislative and executive branch of government tend to be much more stable.

It is good to amend the constitution if necessary, but the principle of there being a constitution and it being followed, is a very important thing for democracy.

That’s true, but I don’t think it invalidates anything about the post you replied to. It’s not a question of who invented what. The case is that the job of the founders WAS to invent the constitution and the structure of the government and all that.

The second group’s job is to read what they wrote and follow it. And sometimes there’s wiggle room in interpretation and settling that is their job too. But they don’t get to make up new laws and amendments just because the result of doing so is desirable for them.

There’s also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That’d be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.

Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.

The entire system is beyond antiquated. Coupled with bureaucratic tendency to be self serving, leads me to believe “reformation” will look more like slow death, and further declining services.

I see no reason for optimism along the lines of “system reform”, and history has no examples I can think of. Shit just gets worse and worse till people start killing people and try some new systems.

If he goes full Dark Brandon with his immunity, perhaps in his lame duck period, then that would be epic.

I got the popcorn ready.

This requirement is what stalls almost all constitutional changes. The last three to pass were 25th 1971 about voting rights for 18 year olds (100 days to pass) the 26th in 1967 about presidential succession (just under 3 years to pass) The last last one (27th) was added 1992 after almost 203 years of meeting the other requirements (It has to do with sitting Congress not being able to raise their own salaries, increases are delayed to the next term. )

There are 6 amendments still sitting out there awaiting ratification by the states.

Had he done that, it would have been before this blatant level of corruption had surfaced. So it would have been met with with “there is no evidence to merit something this drastic”.

Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it. Our “majority” in the Senate existed only for legislation those two DINOs would allow.

You push an ethics review of the seating court. Make a solid case to impeach them if they did wrong. If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.

Install term limits on the court as well. You correct the wrongs the Republicans have built in the last 20-30 years.

Make every American a member of the supreme Court and cases are decided by a popular vote