President Biden wants to change the Supreme Court

yes but what if the supreme court disagrees with such a decision? or either the house and/or senate doesn't agree

Lots of people want to do a lot of things but don't have the power to do so

Regardless of who is president, the American system is of course ridiculous.

Executive power should have no influence over the judicial power.

Quote from bethesda

We can have a referendum in the entire United States where people vote whether they want SCOTUS to have term limits or not.

This change would require a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Despite opinions to the contrary, the United States is a constitutional republic - not a direct democracy - national referendums are intentionally not permitted. Referendums are only permitted at the state level, and only in some states.

The system is structured the way it is on purpose - preventing a lawless political figure like Joe Biden from changing the composition of the Supreme Court to achieve his goals is exactly what the Constitution is designed to do. The proper way to achieve political goals is through legislative action in Congress. If the elected representatives are rejecting those political goals, then the people pushing the cause don't get to cry "The process is unfair!" and try to take shortcuts - they need to make their case to the public and get representatives elected who support their views.

Quote from bethesda

We can have a referendum in the entire United States where people vote whether they want SCOTUS to have term limits or not.

you make it sound like referendums are so easy to organise and pull off

Quote from bethesda

They're just text (which is the easy part), but of course there's a process to put a referendum on the ballot. There's a referendum in my area's upcoming election.

small local ones or state ones are a lot easier than national ones

Quote from DaisyTheGenuine

And one side has a talent in making sure certain people don't vote

very good strategic decision (bad for democracy) but good for keeping themselves in power...

Quote from versatile

I don't really understand what this means... Sigh and I thought I was getting the hang of American politics.

currently there's 9 US supreme court judges

but ideologically they lean 6 - 3 in favour of the conservative side which means in any potential argument brought to the court one would say purely based on their ideology they would vote based on that (ie. Roe v Wade)

now removing a Supreme Court judge is almost impossible so the next best thing would be to add more judges to shift the ideology to the left

Quote from selfmate

currently there's 9 US supreme court judges

but ideologically they lean 6 - 3 in favour of the conservative side which means in any potential argument brought to the court one would say purely based on their ideology they would vote based on that (ie. Roe v Wade)

now removing a Supreme Court judge is almost impossible so the next best thing would be to add more judges to shift the ideology to the left

changing the number of supreme court justices requires congress to pass a law to increase the number of justices. Even if it were to pass the house of representatives, it would immediately die in the Senate as it would require 60 votes (assuming they don't nuke the filibuster (which in itself would open a pandora's box)).

If he wants to change the Supreme Court, he can start by telling Congress to do its job and impeach a certain justice who's been taking bribes from special interest groups. Constitutionally, justices are only to serve with "good behavior." That means they go bye-bye when they misbheave, term limit or not.

But wait, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery!

The US supreme court just basically legalized bribery | Moira Donegan

By sheer coincidence, this ruling concerns the sort of generous ‘gifts’ and ‘gratuities’ that justices have been known to accept

www.theguardian.com

Gee golly, I wonder why these conservative "justices" would want to do such a thing? What a weird concidence indeed.

Having people who think they're above the law being the ones to decide the law was a really bad idea.

Quote from 0ppar

changing the number of supreme court justices requires congress to pass a law to increase the number of justices. Even if it were to pass the house of representatives, it would immediately die in the Senate as it would require 60 votes (assuming they don't nuke the filibuster (which in itself would open a pandora's box)).

didn't say the process was easy but just letting ripia know the rationale behind why someone would want to increase the number of justices

No surprise Progressive want to limit the Supreme Court. They can't have any checks n balance on their policies.

Disparate move by Biden to stay relevant. His Party has left him out to dry, leaving him on his own.

Quick Constitution lesson of term limits. Its how the Passions of the Public is considered. Supreme Court is the most isolated from the ever changing public passions.

It is a building block of the US Government. Just as the three branches of government are separate and equal. Legislative and Executive branches are held in check by the Supreme Court. Preventing unconstitutional legislation and Executive actions.

The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Prevents public passions effecting their decisions. Term limits would be a regularly scheduled popularity contest of endless nominees. Appealing to the issues of the day over the adherence to the Constitution. The one time process of Senate nomination to find a qualified justice is enough quasi campaigning.