President Joe Biden promised Black voters Wednesday that he would appoint progressives to the US Supreme Court if elected to a second term, suggesting he expects vacancies on the high court over the next four years.

“The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life,” he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.

It was as explicit a warning as Biden could offer about the stakes of the upcoming election, and a clear reminder that some of the nine justices have entered their seventies.

Clarence Thomas is 75 and Samuel Alito is 74; both are conservative and appointed by Republican presidents. Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal who was nominated by President Barack Obama, turns 70 next month.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Actually progressive or “biden is the most progressive president in recent US history” progressive? I’ll take either over the alternative, but I’d love it if it was more than former than the latter.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ll take anyone who isn’t a corporate careerist at this point. The people sitting on the supreme court shouldn’t be expecting to leverage it to make an exhorbitant amount of money.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Actually progressive or “biden is the most progressive president in recent US history” progressive?

      He’s going to appoint Merrick Garland again.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “Just as soon as the court decides that the President is immune from prosecution, I expect there will be six vacancies soon after.” wink

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, since it is legal for a President to order assassinations… why not open SCOTUS up to some new blood?

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah agreed. I never quite understood FDRs thinking on putting an even number of people in the court. We have so many 5-4 decisions now an even court would be chaos.

        • Aqarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Force a definitive decision, instead of precedent that keeps getting overturned?

          Tennis woks kinda like that.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yes. But that rarely happens (usually just because of health issues). There are very few decisions that have been made where all the members didn’t weigh in. When even votes have happened the lower court ruling will stand as is. Which is particularly bad when you have places like the 5th circuit trying their best to fascism.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      13 is a better number, it matches the number of Federal Appelate Courts.

      If Democrats manage to take both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I would advocate for immediately passing a law to increase the size of the SC to 13, effective for the start of the SC’s 2026 term.

      Then, Democrats and Republicans should go to work to enact a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on the SC. Republicans would finally have incentive to do it quickly, or else Biden would name 4 young Liberals to the SC who will be there 40+ years without term limits.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think a better solution should tie SC seats to the number of federal district courts. That way, should the number grow in the future, SC seats will be added automatically

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, that is better, but would require a Constitutional Amendment to formalize, otherwise a future Congress can just change it. Which is why you start with expansion, then force the Republicans to the table to discuss the amendment under a time limit.

      • FattestMattest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        If I’m not mistaken, Biden could add seats if he wanted to, so could any president. I think no one wants to do it because then the other party would add more as well.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          The size of the SC is set through legislation, so a law would need to pass Congress, and the President would need to sign it. So one party can’t do it unilaterally unless they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I wish he would. The only thing stopping him, ironically, is his fear of appearing partisan (and angering “moderate” republicans, if they even exist anymore), despite the fact that that’s exactly what this would be attempting to remedy.

      I’d love to be wrong, but he’ll never do it. He’s barely even willing to talk about the supreme court’s corruption and blatant bias. I think he’s allergic to that much institutional change.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        He called Trump semi-fascist in 2022 and backed off since. Biden does not push the limits of any power he wields.

        You’ll note there has been an endless amount of arguments about Biden’s limitations to his ability and power to effect change, but never that he is pushed up against those limits.

        Biden was most popular when he was fighting for Green New Deal and BBB. But his inability to whip his party into voting for the platform the Democratic party ran on was disappointing and he has never recovered.

  • PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s very likely the GOP will win control of the Senate, and if they do McConnell would sooner die than let Biden even consider nominating someone.

    Still gonna vote for Biden though, because if Trump wins the Conservative justices will all retire at once and they’ll nominate 30-year-olds to fill in. I don’t want 60+ more years of a Conservative court majority!

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      McConnell has already said he would step down from Senate leadership, so some other guy would get the task of impeding everything Biden does.

      However, things are looking better than they used to that Democrats will at least be able to hold the Senate to a 50/50 split, and possibly also pick off Ted Cruz in Texas. Democrats who are not fond of Biden don’t seem to be taking it out on their Senate candidates. There are several states where Biden is trailing, yet the incumbant Democratic Senator still has a good lead.

      • PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 months ago

        McConnell has already said

        Let me stop you right there, because this man has already shown his word doesn’t mean anything. It shifts with the political winds.

        Democrats have to win in a lot of red states this time around. I’d be over the moon if that happened, but maybe we should have a backup plan in case Democrats lose in Ohio, Montana and Texas.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Democrats already have 51 seats (counting the independants). WV is a lost cause, but if they keep the seats they currently hold (including Arizona), that’s how they get to the tie at 50.

          You point out Ohio and Montana where holding that seat will be hard, but signs are pointing up.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Biden not causing many stiffies will have a negative impact on the number of those actually going to the polls though

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 months ago

    While it’s POSSIBLE there will be vacancies in the next presidential term, the two oldest, Thomas and Alito, will still be younger in 2028 than Biden is now.

    So I wouldn’t exactly hold my breath on Biden getting the picks.

    Whoever serves from '28 to '32 will likely get to replace both Thomas and Alito, then the next two oldest are Roberts and Sotomayor.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      According to Trump’s lawyers, Biden could use Seal Team Six to … create some vacancies.

      Clearly never going to happen, but it’s too silly of an actual legal argument to ignore.

  • wanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Or he expects there to be no vacancies, giving him the option to say whatever he thinks might get him votes without ever having to follow through on his promises.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Doubt any would retire willingly. It’s a sad state of affairs that judges will go until death before allowing the other side replace them.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    so now on top of not being that other he is saying he will be a better president in the next four years because he thinks people might die

    he is really grasping at straws at this point

    executive order abortion rights in, legalize cannabis, and raise the minimum wage a lot

    that alone would guarantee him this next election no debates or speeches or anything else would be needed

    • lapping6596@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Is executive order enough to raise the minimum wage?

      I guess he could order all federal agencies will only work with companies that pay some new minimum.

      Feels like abortion would get destroyed by the 5th circuit and the supreme court just like many of the other things they’ve tried to do

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It suggests that Republican SCOTUS judges might want to retire but they aren’t under any obligation to do so in the next 4 years. Unless he’s ready to pull the trigger on court reforms or he’s got an assassin lined up this is just another empty promise.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not sure whether to poke at the fact that there probably won’t be any vacancies or that he would actually choose a progressive considering people are resigning from his administration every week over Gaza.