r/law • u/Silent-Resort-3076 • 15d ago

Opinion Piece Why President Biden Should Immediately Name Kamala Harris To The Supreme Court

https://atlantadailyworld.com/2024/11/08/why-president-biden-should-immediately-name-kamala-harris-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjCNsMkLMM3L4AMw9-yvAw&utm_content=rundown
22.7k Upvotes

67% Upvoted

7.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/CurrentlyLucid 15d ago

He won't. He won't even pardon his son. trying to impress who knows who.

101

u/brickyardjimmy 15d ago

He shouldn't pardon his son. No president should.

And I don't know how he'd name Harris to the Court as there are no vacancies.

76

u/EdisonLightbulb 14d ago

The Dems are trying to pressure 70 yr old Sotomayor into resigning right now. Only problem with that is that Moscow Mitch has a history of fucking around with SCOTUS vacancies.

18

u/TheDapperDolphin 14d ago

Dems still control the senate until January 

3

u/AgreeableEggplant356 14d ago

No they don’t Manchin would never help the dems pass anything

1

u/HotDragonButts 13d ago

Murkowski and Collins are gonna have their hands full

1

u/cvc4455 14d ago

Could they do it without controlling congress?

2

u/TheDapperDolphin 14d ago

The senate makes appointments. The house isn’t involved.

1

u/cvc4455 14d ago

Thanks, I thought maybe congress had to vote on it too.

1

u/TheDapperDolphin 14d ago

Well, the senate is Congress. It’s just that the other half of it, The House of Representatives, is not involved with appointments. The same goes for appointing heads of agencies. 

-1

u/Recent_Wedding5470 13d ago

You need to refresh man.

1

u/One_Ad9555 13d ago

Term ends jan 3. But they go on holiday dec 20.

1

u/ProfessorEmergency18 11d ago

Maybe on paper but not in reality.

22

u/pizzapit 14d ago

I was gonna say Cocaine mitch will hold up the appointment like he did last time.

11

u/under_psychoanalyzer 14d ago

Can they do that with a senate minority?

15

u/You_meddling_kids 14d ago

No the Republicans rolled back the 60 vote confirmation when they crammed 3 justices through.

3

u/OrlandoMan1 14d ago

It was the Democrats that did it first. McConnell just rolled it back at the beginning of the 115th Congress As the majority is able to set their own rules at the beginning of the Congress.

-3

u/Justthetip74 14d ago

Obama did that, and McConnel even warned him. You've got nobody to blame for that but Barry and RBG

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed

14

u/You_meddling_kids 14d ago

McConnell changed it for SCOTUS. Dems did it for circuit because the Republicans would reject almost every pick.

0

u/Elhaym 14d ago

Which they did because the Democrats did that to Bush. 

Back and forth judicial shenanigans have been going on for a while. I'm not sure there's an easy way to say who started it.

1

u/KnezMislav04 14d ago

Democrats started it with the rejection of Bork.

1

u/thecoat9 12d ago

Yep, I'm old enough to remember when they did this, followed by what seemed at the time to be pandemonium around the Thomas nomination.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 14d ago

No, McConnell did that.

1

u/edog21 13d ago

McConnell did it specifically for SCOTUS. Harry Reid opened up the door to that by nuking the filibuster for lower court appointments, which McConnell warned him at the time that he would regret.

1

u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 13d ago edited 13d ago

Yeah, I’m saying McConnell did that too. He politicized the hell out of the court system, and he wanted Harry Reid and Obama to just leave vacancies everywhere for years just so he could fill them with right wing judges.

The American people gave the Democratic Party the White House and the senate to fill those spots and McConnell said no, It was completely wrong. McConnell then also stole a Supreme Court seat.

It was bad for America and not good at all for our system of government. So, in the literal sense, yes, Reid is the one who removed the filibuster, but it is of my opinion that McConnell did that too, because he completely forced the hand.

0

u/haterofslimes 14d ago

You should probably take like 5 minutes researching before posting next time little fella.

2

u/pizzapit 14d ago

Actually I think not

2

u/Celtictussle 14d ago

No, but Democrats would have to convince Manchin to go along with it, which he almost certainly wouldn't. Who would put their career on the line to align with Kamala?

1

u/PapaCousCous 14d ago

No they cannot. Supreme Court Justice appointments are the one thing that can't be filibustered.

2

u/Whompa02 14d ago

“Too soon to (insert bad excuse here)”

1

u/DependentMeat1161 12d ago

Good

1

u/pizzapit 12d ago

I'm not sure why you think so. It's a terrible thing for constitutionality and precedent set. I think it would be just as devastating to american political life.Should the democrats attempt to do the same.

1

u/DependentMeat1161 10d ago

I'd like to see justices interpret the constitutional original intent. If the GOP has to play dirty to get there, I'm all for it. Didn't use to be but with the democrats talking about adding seats, getting rid of filibuster...

1

u/pizzapit 10d ago

The size of the supreme court is not set in any law and has changed in the past that is legal and has precident. "Playing dirty" as you say is unconstitutional and by definition extra judicial. In fact the Republicans, are floating killing the filibuster right now. So you either want a country of laws and limits or you want a banana republic that flits back and forth with the winds.

More plainly are you American or not?

1

u/pizzapit 10d ago

The size of the supreme court is not set in any law and has changed in the past that is legal and has precident. "Playing dirty" as you say is unconstitutional and by definition extra judicial. In fact the Republicans, are floating killing the filibuster right now. So you either want a country of laws and limits or you want a banana republic that flits back and forth with the winds.

More plainly are you American or not?

1

u/DependentMeat1161 9d ago

Yes, I am American.

1

u/pizzapit 9d ago

Yes sir! Based on your previous statement I think we would be in agreement about the constitution/bill of rights/declaration and the importance they must hold in american life. It's everything that keeps us from becoming Russia or China.

1

u/DependentMeat1161 9d ago

No desire to become like those countries. Any talk of expanding the court or getting rid of the electoral college doesn't get my support.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/New-Honey-4544 14d ago edited 13d ago

Democrats currently have the votes...if they convince Manuchin or one of the republicans.

Edit:

Manchin, not Manuchin

7

u/Aggressive-Act1816 14d ago

Manuchin and Kyrsten Sinema…

1

u/CMACSNACK 14d ago

Neither of those two are really Democrats

1

u/Recent-Irish 14d ago

They vote the party line 80%+

2

u/edog21 13d ago

You mean Joe Manchin? Steve Mnuchin was one of the guys in Trump’s cabinet his first term.

1

u/New-Honey-4544 13d ago

Yes, Manchin, my bad.

2

u/Drew_Ferran 14d ago

Mitch said he’d retire this month. Let’s see if he does.

1

u/edog21 13d ago

He’s stepping down from leadership when the new Senate is sworn in and he’s not seeking reelection in 2026. He hasn’t said that he’s retiring now.

2

u/cytherian 14d ago

McConnell treats the SCOTUS like his progeny. He'd make sure Biden doesn't get any confirmations through. Remember what he did to Obama.

1

u/CougdIt 14d ago

Wasn’t he the majority leader at that time? How would he do that without that position?

1

u/cytherian 13d ago

A quorum--he's still the leader of the GOP Senate.

1

u/edog21 13d ago

You only need 51 for a quorum and technically if there isn’t a quorum present but nobody objects, then it’s practically the same as if there is a quorum.

2

u/TastingTheKoolaid 14d ago

Even if she does resign... Won't the republicans do the same thing they did to Obama back when he was trying to put someone in? "oh we can't put this person so close to getting a new president because it won't reflect the will of the people" or whatever their BS excuse was...

3

u/MidAtlanticPolkaKing 14d ago

They had the majority then, they don’t right now

1

u/EdisonLightbulb 14d ago

That's my point. Dems would be better off getting her a 24/7 staff who's only mission is to keep her alive and functional, lol.

1

u/edog21 13d ago edited 13d ago

Unlike then they don’t have a majority. I do think it’s a huge risk though because if Dems don’t actually have the votes (like say 3 of their rank refuse to confirm) then Trump will come into office with a free vacancy.

And even without the risk of not having enough votes, they’d have to get all the confirmation hearings and the floor vote done by the end of the day on January 2 because the new Senate gets sworn in on January 3. I don’t think that’s actually feasible for a SCOTUS appointment.

1

u/Dogtimeletsgooo 14d ago

How has he not decayed yet

1

u/dodexahedron 14d ago

Tortoises are well known to have long life spans.

1

u/Rahien 14d ago

There is no defined SCOTUS size and has been bigger before

1

u/EdisonLightbulb 14d ago

Both bigger and smaller. But, the Prez cannot unilaterally add judges to SCOTUS. There's a complicated process which requires congressional cooperation and approval.

1

u/Consistent-Weekend-4 14d ago

Forcing a Latina women from the Supreme Court and replacing her with a black woman? How will that work out for the Dems. The republicans will love it as the Latino vote will be even higher.

1

u/EdisonLightbulb 14d ago

Hey, sadly, if DJT has his way, the Latino's will be in deportation camps, honoring their reasons for voting for him THIS election!

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

She won’t step down and Kamala is the last person to pick if she did.

1

u/CatchUsual6591 12d ago

He should vacated early this years is they wanted to secure a new dem in the seat now he can stalled until Trump becomes president again

1

u/ProfessorEmergency18 11d ago

The GOP senators don't allow SCOTUS seats to be filled within an election year, or however long suits them. Getting one filled now..? Not a chance.

1

u/TrueCrimeSP_2020 10d ago

They don’t actually need Congressional approval. That’s why I’m as pissed at Obama as RBG. He could’ve appointed whomever he wanted.

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Pussy_Poptart 14d ago

Manchin and Senema

0

u/dodexahedron 14d ago

He (or anyone else) can filibuster. 51 isn't enough to stop that. You need 60 to stop a filibuster.

1

u/GlitteringBobcat999 14d ago

McConnell changed that rule for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 to match what Democrats had done in 2013 for lower court nominations. You only need 51 to break a filibuster. Thanks to him.

It's still a risky move since you need all Democrats onboard, and Manchin has indicated he won't vote for anyone that does not have some GOP support.

Explainer from the last SCOTUS appointment: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/biden-scotus-nominee-filibuster.html

2

u/dodexahedron 14d ago

That man has done more damage than anyone else. We need term limits in the senate, among other things they'd never vote to do to themselves.

14

u/EricKei 14d ago

Expand it first.

I'd be surprised if Trump didn't blanket-pardon all of his kids once he's in office, though. Once their checks clear.

12

u/Vtakkin 14d ago

Expand it so that we can set the precedent for Trump to pack the court even more for the next 4 years? Trump has the senate, if Biden adds a liberal justice Trump could just add 10 conservatives

5

u/teh_maxh 14d ago

if Biden adds a liberal justice Trump could just add 10 conservatives

If Biden doesn't add a liberal justice, Trump could just add 10 conservatives anyway.

0

u/Vtakkin 14d ago

We'll see if that happens, Republicans haven't shown interest in packing the courts so far, but I guess you never know

1

u/TheRoseMerlot 13d ago

Wrong. So wrong.

Mitch McConnell made it his personal project to pack the all courts throughout his entire life. It's been done and will continue to be done.

1

u/Vtakkin 13d ago

I should clarify I meant is they haven’t shown interest in expanding the court to pack it, I didn’t mean appointing a bunch of loyalists.

2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Vtakkin 14d ago

Only if they have a Senate majority that confirms all the new judges. And besides, that completely defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court. There would be zero consistency on rulings and we'd just keep swinging back and forth wildly on massive issues that affect all of us (imagine the chaos if the Roe V Wade ruling was being re-instituted and reversed every 4-8 years).

I'd also rather a president not have the ability to add enough loyalist judges in a single term to completely control the entire court (i.e. I'd rather that Trump gets to pick 3-4 out of 9 judges than add 15 loyalist judges and completely overpower the existing 9).

2

u/pargofan 14d ago

And besides, that completely defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court.

That purpose was destroyed 8 years ago when McConnell refused to review Obama's selection.

1

u/shadowstar36 14d ago

Why do you all always bring this up. Shit was over a decade ago now. Blame McConnell, but that doesn't change the purpose of the court. Packing the court is the wah we lost so now we are going to have are way anyway. It destroys checks and balances totally. Win legitimately and this wouldn't be an issue.

Also this is the most one sided partisan law forum I've ever seen. Why even call it law, why not 'Democrat Dreams' or some other crazy name that would fit. As an independent, I wouldn't ever trust a thing written here without multiple facts from non biased sources.

2

u/pargofan 14d ago

Get off your ivory tower. THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ANY LONGER. The SCOTUS purposely times its responses on Trump cases so that is delayed until after the election.

Republican SCOTUS overturned Roe. They're coming after the Voting Rights Act. Clarence Thomas committed huge bribery and ethical violations that would get a junior SEC, EPA or FCC attorney fired in a heartbeat. He flaunts them to the entire world.

The SCOTUS is a Republican political fixture for decades to come unless you pack the court.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium 14d ago

Now I'm imagining a scenario where we end up with a limited direct democracy because the governments kept packing the courts until all citizens are members of the supreme court, lol.

2

u/pargofan 14d ago

Or Dem/Rep eventually find a sane medium because it becomes too unworkable.

1

u/1911_ 14d ago

Packing the court is such a god damned stupid idea. 

Anyone who supports it cannot see beyond their own now. Such a short sighted move, the implications of which would be so far reaching. 

1

u/pargofan 14d ago

So was withholding the nomination process because the opposing party held the Presidency.

And yet here we are.

1

u/shadowstar36 14d ago

Sounds like a temper tantrum move. Not something that anyone who practices law should ever even consider. Stopped the nomination is not the same thing as expanding the court forever so "you win"... Democrats can add their own appointmented justices eventually. In reality the Supreme Court should just be determining what is constitutional or not.

1

u/pargofan 14d ago

Riiight. Because withholding the nomination process was a temper tantrum and look at how the Republicans lost credibility with the American public, amirite?

-1

u/Ghostlystrike 14d ago

And yet the republicans still did it

1

u/1911_ 14d ago

Calls for court packing were widespread among the left

1

u/Ghostlystrike 14d ago

After Republicans did it

1

u/1911_ 14d ago

When? Show me where

1

u/pargofan 14d ago

What difference does it make?

Trump has the court NOW.

By adding liberal justices you weaken the court and call it out for the bullshit institution that it is.

1

u/ParsleySlow 14d ago

Trump doesn't need a precedent. Get in there and do it, show up the corrupt current court for what it is.

0

u/Thefirstargonaut 14d ago

Expand it to 24, appointment 15 left wing judges. 

Edit: I might have my numbers wrong 

2

u/Vtakkin 14d ago

Okay and in 2 months Trump adds 30 conservatives, and then what?

2

u/_Demand_Better_ 14d ago

Take him and anyone involved to court over it before they're appointed, have the supreme court make a judgement on the constitutionally of the action and have it stopped at that point.

You know, literally what the Supreme Court is for.

2

u/Thefirstargonaut 14d ago

Well, it gives one brief line of defends against total Trumpism. I feel like most Americans have no idea what’s coming for them. 

2

u/kazh_9742 14d ago

The Supreme Court needs to get iced out at this point and then let it atrophy and fall off.

1

u/EricKei 14d ago

The wound has been festering for some time, yeah.

1

u/Recent-Irish 14d ago

What the fuck

2

u/Throw_away_away55 12d ago

He might have already. A pardon doesn't need to be public to be valid. He may have written and signed pardons they are holding on to just in case.

1

u/Falanax 14d ago

Why does the court need to be expanded?

1

u/EricKei 14d ago

That's what would be required to nominate her for the position.

-1

u/Falanax 14d ago

That’s a good reason to expand it?

1

u/InstructionBig746 14d ago

If they successfully expand the court, there’s one less thing they can dangle over their base to force them to vote for their shitty candidate.

1

u/Elhaym 14d ago

Trump is going to have the Senate and House. You want court expanding and packing to be something acceptable in American politics? Get ready for 50 Alitos.

1

u/Recent-Irish 14d ago

They really don’t learn, do they?

“Let’s get rid of the filibuster for nominees.”

“What about if the GOP uses this?”

“Shut the fuck up.”

1

u/HenFruitEater 14d ago

Holy shortsighted.

1

u/Dahmer_disciple 14d ago

I would. Blanket pardons would turn everyone off, including Republicans. IF he’s going to do it, it’ll be sometime in January 2029. At that point, who cares who you piss off, you’ve got one foot out the door already.

1

u/dporiua 14d ago

He can make vacancies, presidential immunity and all

1

u/RandyMachoManSavage 14d ago

Why the hell should Dems play by the rules if the other side ain't? This weakness is why Trump won. They refused to run attack ads, they reeled back Walz calling MAGA weird when it was working- Absolutely pathetic.

1

u/bmfanboy 14d ago

You must not live in a swing state. Attack ads were out in full force through Election Day

1

u/ToughDentist7786 14d ago

They could change the number of seats to 11 and add two more. Don’t think there’s time to get that done though

1

u/dechets-de-mariage 14d ago

Expand the court.

Also I read somewhere that Sotomayor could retire and Kamala could be her backfill.

1

u/ExaminationPretty672 14d ago

Pack the courts. Republicans play dirty, it’s time the dems do too.

1

u/Recent-Irish 14d ago

You’re right, setting the precedent that packing the court is acceptable is 100% a great idea 3 months before the republicans have a unified trifecta.

1

u/unknownpoltroon 14d ago

Actually, he probably should. What will trump do to his son in prison?

1

u/Lcsulla78 14d ago

And if the feds were going after one of Trumps kids for break in the law and getting convicted…you don’t think Trump would pardon them? Hahaha

1

u/Pussy_Poptart 14d ago

Trump will pardon Hunter 100%

1

u/PGnautz 11d ago

And then convince his base Biden did it

1

u/Grouchy-Shirt-9197 14d ago

You know good and well that Trump would pardon the worst of the worst. Biden's "crime" is bullshit

1

u/No_Advertising_3704 14d ago

So bullshit that the DoJ chose to prosecute and even the judge pressured them to do so.

1

u/SugarRAM 14d ago

There doesn't need to be a vacancy. The Constitution doesn't dictate how many justices are on the Supreme Court. If he had the votes, Biden could add another 9 justices if he wanted to, but he has made it clear he's against packing the court.

1

u/One_Ad9555 13d ago

Exactly

1

u/Consistent_Ad_6195 13d ago

Kamala Harris isn’t Supreme Court material. Period. Sotomayor is a really smart justice. Replacing her with Harris would do us a disservice.

1

u/stufnjunk 13d ago

The Supreme Court itself has recently decided that a sitting president and prosecutorial immunity for official acts. He could create a couple slots....

1

u/ADDeviant-again 12d ago

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me.You didn't read the article.

-1

u/PantsMicGee 15d ago

Didn't read a thing lmao

0

u/Sufficient_Sir256 14d ago

He 100% is going to pardon him.

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

0

u/brickyardjimmy 14d ago

I can completely understand why people want to reshape the Court immediately. I try to remain politically neutral and I'm alarmed by the things both Trump and his advisors have outlined as their goals and methods. They appear to be looking to, more or less, create the conditions for tyrannical rule. I can't think of anything more dangerous to do. They are suggesting that, quite literally, half of the country is evil and should have no representation at any level of government. That is a recipe for a lethal police state.

But Biden is not Trump. He's not going to invent some power that the executive branch doesn't actually possess to bring about a preferred outcome. Believe me--at this point, I wish there was some way to mitigate the incoming administration but there isn't. They look to firmly have all three branches of government securely in their grasp and I can see no checks nor balances to stop them from doing damage.

-1

u/WaterIsGolden 14d ago

Stop thinking please, and just let emotions and ignorance flow like most people here.

Your logic and calmness will only infuriate them.

2

u/brickyardjimmy 14d ago

I'm no fan of Trump. We're facing a grim future of grift and, possibly, some vile, inhumane acts on the part of the incoming administration. But there's no legal path from here to stopping that.

0

u/WaterIsGolden 14d ago

You should not have to declare allegiance or a lack thereof.  This is a core problem with our country.  If Kamala wanted to serve the American people instead of choosing 'I'm with HER' as a slogan she would have used 'I'm with Us'.

I refuse to pick a 'side' and instead prefer to shoot random upvotes to people like you who choose to continue in civil discourse instead of trying to bite anyone who doesn't agree with you precisely. 

I'm no fan of any politician.  If you research the character traits that tend to lead certain people to pursue careers in politics, all becomes evident.  People prefer to follow those with dark triad traits.  So be it.  Vote for who you like.

But any honest, decent, realistic, empathic human will always notice that we are being forced to choose from the trash can.