What is Biden supposed to do...

[Septua]

..to undo the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe? The comments I'm seeing on MSNBC are saying he won't take the "bold steps" to fight the decision. What bold steps are available...with 48 Senators?

[budkin]

1. Steps that are bold of course

Apparently, he won't do those.

[Septua]

6. Can you name one...

..that would undo the Roe overturn?

[mcar]

14. Name the steps

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. :). Got the sarcasm:)

[DFW]

40. "Top men."

So did I.

[Aristus]

46. Well, tell us, Mozart.

Name us a bold step…

[DemocraticPatriot]

61. Well, one possibility has been mentioned about

allowing abortion facilities to be established on federally-controlled land, within red states...
or even within federal buildings in the same areas.


I am sympathetic to such an option, but I am not a lawyer...

[sabbat hunter]

2. Use his bully pulpit

to get congress to codify Roe v Wade in federal law. Manchin has already expressed that he would be willing to carve out a filibuster exemption to do so.
He can also use an executive order to claim that abortions are a protected right on federal lands.

[Septua]

7. I hadn't heard Manchin would carve the filibuster.

What about Sinema?

[Igel]

10. Unless it's changed in the recent past,

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-he-supports-overriding-filibuster-protect-abortion-rights-2022-06-30/

[PortTack]

35. Sinema says no

[mcar]

15. He has spoken out against the decision and for the

filibuster exemption. That is using the bully pulpit.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the executive order you mention.

What specific options do you have that a sitting president can actually do that Biden hasn't done?

[Hekate]

22. The "bully pulpit" is not some magic wand to Congress, but you knew that...

The President is not the king of the Congress, but you knew that too. He can remind Democrats of what they ought to do, but the Dems have to do it.

The President can exhort the public from his metaphorical pulpit, and bully (hooray) for him. But the public has to pressure the lawmakers and the public has to vote.

The Prez can do a lot of things, but forcing people is not one of them.

[Demsrule86]

79. Manchin said he would not do so actually. And we are now down another Senator Leahy who

broke his hip.

[Bev54]

3. IMO he has to be prepared to expand the court and relay that to the voters

Tell them the court needs to be put into balance because they have been used by the republicans ie McConnell to legislate from the bench because the republicans in congress are unable to get their agenda through. Yes tough measures need to happen and quickly, it is all up to the midterms but people need to know the dems are going to play hardball and do something drastic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. And what happens in two years when/if Republicans take back control? "Expand the court"...

even further? I don't think people have really thought about the consequences of such a move. While I understand the anger & frustration surrounding so many of these 6-3 decisions, cooler heads must prevail. And which Senate is going to approve such a move? Certainly not the one we have today. Sadly, this is not something Pres. Biden can do alone.

We were screaming, and banging our heads against the proverbial wall in 2016 that the highest court in the land was on the line. However, many seemed to take the position of a certain loudmouthed actress who declared that "I don't vote with my vagina". We are where we are because of apathy & sore loser-ism.

[Bev54]

54. If the dems put in the work and win with a majority, do what needs to be done, I think

it will be years before the republicans see a majority again. Get voting rights and women's rights, reverse abortion shit and put things back on track, the republicans are done as a party. They will not lose the stench of what they have done. People now realize that what was warned is true not hyperbole because it is happening. Joe can give them hope by spelling out that the dems are prepared to fight fire with fire. No more humming and hawing, time for action.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

55. this

don't be afraid to tell the truth to the american public.

What just happened and what will happen soon from Scotus is not progress and most of the country does not want this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. Not trying to be disagreeable, but the voters can't always be counted on to vote in their...

own best interests. I'm not sure it matters what the Dems say or don't say at this point. I'm convinced that there is a contingent on the left who want to "burn it all down" to bring on the so-called "Revolution".

What is "the work" you think the Democrats aren't putting in? I agree that action is needed, but it would have been so much easier had we made the logical choice in 2016. There would be no Gorsuch, no Amy Barrett, and most definitely, no Brett Kavanaugh. I'm sorry to rehash the past, but thanks to some leftover butt hurt from the primaries, we wound up with a clown who was able to appoint three (3) USSC justices. As a result, we're back to starting from zero.

Joe Biden can "spell it out" till he's blue in the face. He can't make people get off their asses to save our own democracy. That's up to us.

[Bev54]

60. What you and every dem can do is contact the Biden admin, and tell them he MUST

announce reforms of the supreme court, I really think people are dejected because they are not seeing the progress that so many want and need. We all know why with 2 obstructionists in the senate is a big problem, but do the every day non political voters really understand?. It is time to call that problem out and what is needed to change it, Biden has started calling them out but also needs to make it clear what the dems would do with a bigger majority. This is not just for Joe Biden but for every dem running for office, get the message straight and out to everyone. So many people were excited for the Biden admin to make the changes that were needed to stop all this bullshit that is now happening and it did not. There is a lot of people do not understand why. Get out in front of it and make it perfectly clear what they will do. It is time for the democrats to be perfectly clear on their agenda compared to republicans, every damn one of them but they must be prepared to make it happen. There is so much to be done and the voters need to know this is not just wishful thinking. People need to inundate every dem and make them to declare that they are behind the dem agenda, all in.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. So we're back to USSC reform. You say that now, but have you really thought this through? As I....

asked before, what happens when we're no longer in power? You and I both know that will happen. No party can hold onto power indefinitely, it's just the nature of modern day politics. It's the reason I keep asking if people are willing to accept a short term solution of court packing to achieve long term goals?

Does the court need to be balanced? Of course it does, but if every new POTUS gets to add new Justices to fit his/her agenda, where does that end? I'm afraid if we (Dems) open that box, it will come back to bite us. And we'll be right back here screaming at Dems to "DO SOMETHING!!!!". How many Supreme Court Justices are enough? And as you've already noted, Manchin & Sinema would have to go along, and I don't see that happening. Yes, both of their constituents should be blowing up their phones relentlessly. Will it move them? We'll have to wait & see.

[Bev54]

75. This is not unusual and it is past time and easily justified with 13 district court of appeals

What is it you suggest? Just let them legislate from the bench and lose democracy? It won't happen with Sinema and Manchin but only if the dems win in Nov with a bigger senate majority. I am not sure what it is you want to do? Just sit back and watch democracy die or actually have them do something about it. If you don't deal with the supreme court it does not matter if dems are in power or not.

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. I will vote. I always vote, and take as many people with me as I can. That's what I can do.

I don't have the answers you're looking for, and I suspect that very few people do. A lot of folks are spitballing right now, and throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, but this decision just came down a few weeks ago. Can we give our Dem leaders at least that long to formulate a plan of action? You, nor I, have a clue what's going on behind the scenes. I have confidence that our legislators are keeping their heads down, and getting down to work, even if they haven't told you or me about it.

Sure, they can probably justify 4 more justices, but you don't think the GOP can rationalize 4 or 5 more, when it's their turn? I ask again, where does it end?

[Bev54]

77. What I do know is that congress cannot fear what republicans may do in the future

There will be no future if they don't do something drastic now. That is how the country ended up where it is because so many thought the republicans were sane and judicious, just disagreed with their politics, they have shown who they are and they need to be stopped however it can be done. This is just one suggestion but sitting back is not an option. You can vote but if they don't do something about the court, it won't count come the next election in 2024. It ends by getting rid of the extreme court and balancing it and putting in ethics and restrictions. Not going to get another chance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. I realize that people are still venting their white hot rage at the court's latest decision, but...

you keep intimating that our leaders are just "sitting back". How do you know this? Are you really qualified to speak on what is or isn't being done just because you haven't been informed yet? I don't have to tell you that Congress is a numbers game, and we don't have sufficient numbers to "get rid of the extreme court and balance it...." We just don't.

I hate to keep returning to this, but thanks to apathy and butthurt, we missed a golden opportunity in 2016. Until and unless we get our numbers up in Congress to make Manchin & Sinema irrelevant, we'll have to play the hand we've been dealt. It's pretty clear that no amount of cajoling & arm twisting by Joe Biden will move those two. It's up to their constituents now.

[Bev54]

86. I know he will not move those two but he can move the voters away from apathy if he

tells them what they are prepared to do with more dems in the senate in 2022. If voters think that the dems won't take the measures needed, even with a bigger majority, then apathy sets in. The dems need to get together and decide if they do get a majority are they prepared to take the steps needed, including balancing the court. If the rest of them are on side, realizing the seriousness of the situation, then Biden needs to let voters know that he will support it. I am so worried that many voters do not believe that Biden or the dems in senate, will do what is needed to save democracy, for the very reason you also relayed; the republicans can do the same down the road. In the interim, if dems get a majority and fix the courts, fix the laws then maybe it will be far more difficult for the republicans to undo. What they cannot do is ever expect the republicans to act like a real political party, those days are long gone and it is time the majority rules and boldly without worrying about retaliation from the minority. Right now the supreme court is governing from the bench and against the majority, they need to be stopped. If not, in 2024 the entire democracy could be gone.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. I hear you, and mostly agree with you. I'm just not as convinced as you are that Pres. Biden....

can make the kind of difference you seem to think he can, just by talking to voters. Lord bless him, he & his administration do that all the time. We're all worried about our democracy, but I trust Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer to find ways to preserve it. You seem pretty convinced that Biden can talk voters out of their apathy & disengagement, but we've discussed for years the people who either don't vote, or vote against their own interests. If one doesn't feel the need to exercise his/her civic obligation, I'm not sure what Biden is supposed to do about them.

Everybody has an opinion of what the leadership should or shouldn't be doing, but I trust the three leaders to know what is legally & constitutionally permissible to save us from going completely over the cliff.

[Demsrule86]

84. We don't have the votes so it is both wishful thinking and a waste of time.

I won't do it...

[pwb]

4. Call Abortion something else

and ignore the Suppress Court ? Protect States rights and interstate travel ?

[former9thward]

21. The right wing would love that.

They would use that action to defy any federal court ruling at anytime about anything.

[In It to Win It]

5. Honestly, the ball is really in Congress's court, no pun intended

There is nothing Joe Biden can do to undo the Dobbs decision.

Biden can step in if states proceed to ban FDA-approved abortion pills, but that's about it. Those pills can be sent in the mail. States cannot mess with the mail.

[Septua]

9. That's what I thought

If the Senate gained a couple or 3 Dems and the House maintains a Dem majority, he could do a lot of stuff.

[Sogo]

59. "States cannot mess with the mail."

But DeJoy can....

[mopinko]

8. channel the ghost of lbj?

[brooklynite]

11. That's his question to answer.

Saying “nothing I can do” will ensure an elected official retires earlier than expected.

[Septua]

12. All and I mean ALL...

..the pro-choice, pro-democracy people got to vote Democrat in November.

[Buckeyeblue]

13. I think he needs to signal that he's open to any and all options to protect all civil rights

Is there a scenario, even though unprecedented, where Biden could prevent the SC from hearing new cases? The judiciary seems to have an independence that neither the executive or legislative branches have.

What if Biden issued an executive order saying the supreme court could not hear new cases in 2022-2023?

Would the SC ultimately have to hear the case and rule on their own fate?

I know this is kind of out there...but we need to do whatever we can.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

25. They would ignore

As they should technically. Executive orders apply to the Executive branch only.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Like your out of the box thinking!!!!

[JI7]

16. We just need to win elections

without that anything Biden and other Democrats do can be taken away.

The media is always demanding to know what Democrats will do .

[Thunderbeast]

17. Could Congress de-fund the Supreme Court?

THAT would send a signal!

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

26. They could

But it's effect would be sorta limited. Federal Judge pay is protected by the Constitution. It cannot be diminished per Article 3, section 1. They don't need to actually meet in the Supreme Court building. So they could just carry out their duties via zoom or whatever, like they have been doing during covid. The main thing it would affect are their clerks and other staff. Research and administrative work would be slowed down.

[qazplm135]

19. I think he has to fight some of his instincts

it's time to stop doing deals with McConnell for one.

It's time to stop being a reasonable guy who is trying to find a bipartisan solution, because the other side doesn't want that and they take advantage of it.

He needs to spit some fire, and at least feint towards the idea of court expansion. Doesn't have to endorse, but he should at the very least make it seem like something that's in the realm of possible.

Stuff like this could bluff someone like Roberts or Kavanaugh to moderate some upcoming opinions for fear of it actually happening.

He did the right thing by calling for filibuster carve outs for choice and election, but start hinting at the idea that if the other side is going to continue to take a mile with every inch he may have to reconsider whether the filibuster makes sense anymore.

I think just in general a more combative and aggressive tone would help. Is there anything substantive? He could push the FDA to make the abortion pill legal without a prescription, to eliminate the need for a doctor. That would open up a lot.

He's spent his whole life treating the Senate as a place where folks come together to get stuff done. Compromises are made. It's admirable. It's noble. It's not reality anymore.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Very well stated!

[PortTack]

36. He has already said he would support a carve out for a codified RvW

And that he no longer supports the Hyde amendment in light of the SC decision

Has publicly denounced the ruling.

[qazplm135]

37. which I recognized

so not sure what your point is other than a reflexive everything Biden is doing is so perfect that even insinuating there's anything left for him to do is blasphemy.

That's the problem here. If I go to Kos, it's nothing but attacks on Biden. If I come here, you can't even whisper the idea that maybe he could do something a teeny tiny bit better without folks going into full on defense mode.

Is there a balanced place left?

[TigressDem]

20. IF he gets creative with the Presidential Powers act...

HE COULD argue that with Russia invading Ukraine and threatening to retaliate against UN because the "sanctions are like an attack on Russia" along with the SCOTUS initiating POWER GRABS and UPENDING ELECTION RIGHTS as well as States going rogue by making elections "selections" by the party in power if they don't like the actual vote of the people and citizens arming themselves and storming the Capitol and murdering innocents in their schools....as well as the remainder of COVID going on...


Maybe he could just take control, order the removal of the SCOTUS who are obviously using power grabs to give the REICH Wing their every wish and make elections unwinnable by DEMS, therefore nearly guaranteeing that a pResident who lost an election gets to return himself to office AGAINST the Will of The People..... appoint replacements that will actually DO the job and not legislate from the bench.

Then he could order tRump and all his cronies who helped in Jan 6th be put in prison until such time the DOJ is ready to prosecute them and push for that to be sooner rather than later.

He could force Wisconsin to not over rule it's duly elected Governors appointments, as a separation of powers example.

With Directive 51 he can do literally ANYTHING.


But will he? Not likely. He isn't a dictator.



https://www.businessinsider.com/what-president-can-do-during-crisis-2018-5

A presidential directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, gives the president of the United States the authority to take over all government functions and all private sector activities in the event of a "catastrophic emergency."

The idea is to ensure American democracy survives after such an event occurs and that we will come out the other end with an "enduring constitutional government." This piece of legislation is called "Directive 51."

[Wednesdays]

88. Sounds like a coup.

Somebody else tried that once, on January 6, 2021.

[TigressDem]

89. NO I said HE COULD.... but I also said, he wouldn't.

Directive 51 was put in place by W.

......

With Directive 51 he can do literally ANYTHING.


But will he? Not likely. He isn't a dictator.



JUST STATING WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO HIM AS PRESIDENT THAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK HE SHOULD DO.

[Native]

23. MSNBC has been fucking obnoxious about this.

They make my blood boil. It's like the stupid has completely taken over. It's embarrassing.

[cbabe]

24. Open all federal lands and property for abortion clinics.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. I think this is doable and could be effective

I mentioned this a day or two ago and the Rules Brigade was all about why not.

Bold would be just doing it and defying the court.

[cbabe]

28. Call all your reps and senators. Push for action. Many voices needed!

Capital switchboard

1.800.270.0309

[Demsrule86]

81. How about winning the damned midterm...because I don't care who calls and how many

nasty things are said about Biden and Democrats, they can't fix this without more Democrats.

[qazplm135]

34. What about

the Hyde Amendment?

[cbabe]

45. What about it? Not paying for abortions, simply opening access.

[qazplm135]

53. The question is about using federal funds

so it might be a bit broader than merely "paying for abortions."

What about using government buildings? Or land? Power? I think it's more complicated than folks want to believe.

The Hyde Amendment is horrible, but right now, it exists and has to be considered.

[cbabe]

56. Clinics would cover all costs as they already do.

[qazplm135]

62. It's usually not that simple

The gift of the space itself on federal land could be considered.

[cbabe]

63. Not a gift but access. Rent would be paid. Done for now.

[qazplm135]

64. you can't pay rent

Anti-deficiency Act, if Congress doesn't authorize it, you can't collect it.

[JanMichael]

29. I don't know but I'm not the president he is.

Which is why I think it's a very ridiculous question to a bunch of people on a website.

[Polybius]

33. There's nothing really he could do besides wait 20 or 30 years for it to be reinstated

I guess he could tell those in anti-abortion states to move now, or plan for the future and don't bring up children there.

[betsuni]

38. Wave his arms around and yell, populist-style: brave, fighting, bold, bully pulpit.

That's what I think they mean.

[Septua]

41. "Wave his arms around and yell, populist-style: brave, fighting, bold, bully pulpit."

And spend hours on Twitter (like Trump did) denigrating the Republicans.

[uponit7771]

39. ****EXPAND THE COURT BY 4!!!****

[WillowTree]

65. And how would the President go about doing that on his own?

[uponit7771]

66. First step, support expansion then make the big promise to democrats. Easy ...

[Emile]

42. Why is MSNBC asking this? Is it designed to cause division

in the democratic party? From a couple replies, it is working.

[Demsrule86]

82. It is what they do. I never watch them.

[gulliver]

43. Biden is, if I'm not mistaken, President of the United States

He should do what he thinks he should do. I couldn't care less what anyone unelected thinks he should do, and no one else should care either.

[MineralMan]

44. We need to elect more Democrats to Congress.

Particularly to the Senate. Joe Biden can't do that. We have to. It's really, really simple. Give him the majorities he needs in both houses of Congress and then stand back.

GOTV!

[BlueIdaho]

47. Yes - but no DINOs please.

Two is plenty.

[MineralMan]

48. I can only vote for one House member and two Senators.

I will, as I always to, vote for the Democrat for those positions - the Democrat who wins the primary where I live.

I don't have a vote in your congressional district or state. You do. Vote for the Democrats on your ballot in November. It's really simple. and get others to go to the polls who will vote for Democrats.

Your definition of DINO may not be valid. Any Democrat is always a better choice than any Republican. Every time. You get only two choices that make any sense for any office. Vote for Democrats!

[BlueIdaho]

50. Obviously.

But for the Party there are still 14 senate primaries still undecided at this date. All I am suggesting is those voters look hard at candidates to make sure they will support the President and the Party platform.

[MineralMan]

51. I always assume that voters in each state are paying attention

to primary races in their state. There are simply too many races for anyone to keep track of on a nationwide basis. In the end, the primaries will produce the general election candidates. It is the general elections that will matter in the end. The primary winners will be the people who get the most votes from their party's members. In the general election, vote for the Democrat. Period.

[BlueIdaho]

52. Absolutely!

Locally we had several FreeDumb Foundation members who reregistered as Democrats and ran in the Primary. Their goal was to take over the party positions and then scuttle the party locally and hopefully throughout the state. Luckily, they were sniffed out but they still received votes in the primary. So - every voter needs to be a fully informed voter. Sadly many are not.

Personally, I only vote for Democrats, but even then - one must be careful.

[Demsrule86]

80. I would take so called DINO's as that would mean we won more red states also and would have

a larger majority.

[Mr.Bill]

57. At this point if Biden walked on water

the press would report he doesn't know how to swim.

[Mad_Machine76]

67. SOMETHING!

but nobody can propose anything that is realistically achievable

[Politicub]

68. I know what I would like to see. I'm not a political scientist, though, so

I don’t know if the risk outweighs the reward.

What I would love to hear from the president is a call to expand the court along with rhetorical pressure on democratic senators to expand voting rights. This isn’t the time for just a couple of speeches.

It doesn’t seem like incremental, measured approaches are getting us anywhere. If anything, the country is regressing and we’re watching progress, that took decades to achieve, be swept away in an instant.

Is it fear of Manchin and Sinema that weighs us down? FDR had something to say about fear, and we have the right to stand up to it.

I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court defangs our right to expression — maybe by blessing Florida’s Don’t Say Gay bill through a future case… who knows. But today we still have the right to speak.

In some red states, legislatures have made it legal to mow down protestors with a motor vehicle. There is already great risk to protesting. But we still have the right to speak out.

Our president has the most visible platform for speech.

After the brutal taking of a woman’s right to choose, legalizing taxpayer funding of religious education, and gutting of the EPA’s ability to enforce regulations, I’m wondering how much more we can take.

But what do I know? Maybe we should be meek, trust the GOP to follow rules, and hope for the best. That always works. /s

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. I can't believe we're still having these conversations.

"I only have 48 senators" is not an excuse that's going to fly with voters, however true it may be.

Biden might not be able to do much, but he needs to at least give voters the impression he is doing something.

[treestar]

70. Are voters really that dumb?

[Act_of_Reparation]

73. YES

[treestar]

71. So easy for them to say

It's too late. They were trashing Dems before, let TFG get elected, used him for all the ratings they could get - they should look in the mirror.

[Hotler]

72. IMO. Stop acting like Mitch and the repugs are your friends.

Could use a little junkyard dog bite and bark, a little street hockey attitude.

[Demsrule86]

83. Right because enough 'barking' and the GOP will surely back down...talk isn't cheap after all...

[Demsrule86]

78. There are no steps he can take until we add more Senators and keep the house. The midterm

is all important.