Biden says if elected he will form bipartisan commission to recommend changes to Supreme Cour

[OrphanSlug]

None of this is okay with me.

For one there really is no such thing as a "bipartisan commission," at the end of the day they still have their leans and still have intention behind whatever set of recommendations they come up with.

And the other reason is we are asking the Executive Branch to initiate something that will land in the lap of the Legislative Branch to deal with, when arguably it is the fault of both of those branches of government as to why the Judicial Branch is such a mess now.

Constitutionally speaking just about every decision by the Supreme Court should be 7-2 or 8-1, just so that the dissent can tell us the implications of the majority opinion. But these 5-4 or soon to be 6-3 decisions down political ideological lines are suggesting nothing more than political ideology over Constitutional intentions.

We see politicians continue to mess with this and it begs the question on why, cause it sure is not about consideration for Constitutionality.

 

[Slartibartfast]

None of this is okay with me.

For one there really is no such thing as a "bipartisan commission," at the end of the day they still have their leans and still have intention behind whatever set of recommendations they come up with.

And the other reason is we are asking the Executive Branch to initiate something that will land in the lap of the Legislative Branch to deal with, when arguably it is the fault of both of those branches of government as to why the Judicial Branch is such a mess now.

Constitutionally speaking just about every decision by the Supreme Court should be 7-2 or 8-1, just so that the dissent can tell us the implications of the majority opinion. But these 5-4 or soon to be 6-3 decisions down political ideological lines are suggesting nothing more than political ideology over Constitutional intentions.

We see politicians continue to mess with this and it begs the question on why, cause it sure is not about consideration for Constitutionality.

The founding fathers never really envisioned a SCOTUS with this type and level of power. It is a shortcoming of their plan and pretty much fell apart when Thomas Jefferson was president when John Marshall made his first ruling about whether or not something is constitutional and invalidated a law from congress (which did seem to contradict the constitution about who can go before the court and under what circumstances)

Since then, the SCOTUS has been nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement to largely leave it alone (more or less, over various administrations). Unfortunately McConnell screwed that up and now here we are.

 

[ttwtt78640]

For the most part, I am ok with this. In the cases where Trump is causing the problem such as when he fired comey or mueller, then I would not find it acceptable.

It is similar to Biden responding to the problem the McConnell has caused in that responding to a situation caused by someone else with being willing to take in more data and respond as you go is usually fine.

Stating that you will decide after the election (we’ll see what the experts later say) is not stating what you intend to do before the election as promised. Get real.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Stating that you will decide after the election (we’ll see what the experts later say) is not stating what you intend to do before the election as promised. Get real.

This is a currently evolving issue. Its ok to withhold judgment until the process completes.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Biden says if elected he will form bipartisan commission to recommend changes to Supreme Court

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that if he is elected, he will form a bipartisan commission to recommend changes to the Supreme Court.

www.cnn.com

This is ok with me. I was not a big fan of the idea of expanding the court (term limits would be better so justices can keep up with our changing culture).

I think the focus should be on admitting new states anyway to resolve the structural problems that got the court like this in the first place. Fix the root issue... the senate.

The typical liberal brain dead response.

Too cowardly to just say yes or no................... in fear of losing votes.

I will form a bipartisan commission? What a cop out.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The founding fathers never really envisioned a SCOTUS with this type and level of power. It is a shortcoming of their plan and pretty much fell apart when Thomas Jefferson was president when John Marshall made his first ruling about whether or not something is constitutional and invalidated a law from congress (which did seem to contradict the constitution about who can go before the court and under what circumstances)

Since then, the SCOTUS has been nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement to largely leave it alone (more or less, over various administrations). Unfortunately McConnell screwed that up and now here we are.

True about the gentlemen's agreement part when you get right down to it. My concern is now that we have gone down this road it is painful to get off it, and I am not entirely convinced a "bipartisan commission" put together by Biden to hand to what I am sure is his goal with a complicit Congress is wise.

McConnell may have "screwed up" but by the Constitution on nominations and conformations (Senate "rules" notwithstanding) all we can conclude is that elections have consequences. In this case I am also worried about the flip side of that.

The founders intentions perhaps not well enough thought out for the Judicial Branch is a reasonable discussion, but again I am not convinced anyone with a (D) or (R) behind their name would ultimately want to have that same conversation. At least not long enough to suspend their political goals to do so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is a currently evolving issue. Its ok to withhold judgment until the process completes.

That is the same nonsense as “we’ll see what happens” and I don’t accept that nonsense from Trump or Biden. Whether (or not) to keep the 9 justice limit is not “an evolving issue”.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is the same nonsense as “we’ll see what happens” and I don’t accept that nonsense from Trump or Biden. Whether (or not) to keep the 9 justice limit is not “an evolving issue”.

That's you then. I think it is fine and its actually a problem if our leaders always have an opinion right away without studying issues.

Its point, aim, shoot -- not point, shoot, aim.

 

[Slartibartfast]

True about the gentlemen's agreement part when you get right down to it. My concern is now that we have gone down this road it is painful to get off it, and I am not entirely convinced a "bipartisan commission" put together by Biden to hand to what I am sure is his goal with a complicit Congress is wise.

McConnell may have "screwed up" but by the Constitution on nominations and conformations (Senate "rules" notwithstanding) all we can conclude is that elections have consequences. In this case I am also worried about the flip side of that.

The founders intentions perhaps not well enough thought out for the Judicial Branch is a reasonable discussion, but again I am not convinced anyone with a (D) or (R) behind their name would ultimately want to have that same conversation. At least not long enough to suspend their political goals to do so.

I think Biden is looking at recruiting conservatives to positions if he gets elected because he wants to try and heal the country or at least work with the moderate ones. One such person may be John Kasich for a cabinet position.

I see this as possibly more on that theme.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's you then. I think it is fine and its actually a problem if our leaders always have an opinion right away without studying issues.

Its point, aim, shoot -- not point, shoot, aim.

Nonsense, if 9 was fine with RGB as the ninth justice, then why is 9 not fine with ACB as the ninth justice?

 

[BlueTex]

Nonsense, if 9 was fine with RGB as the ninth justice, then why is 9 not fine with ACB as the ninth justice?

It's not up to RGB, its up to congress...

 

[Slartibartfast]

Nonsense, if 9 was fine with RGB as the ninth justice, then why is 9 not fine with ACB as the ninth justice?

What RGB wanted at this point is irrelevant since she also wanted congress to wait until the next president is elected. As I said, McConnell screwed this up and opened the door. This is on him now.

If the country needs to be defended from him, then so be it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think Biden is looking at recruiting conservatives to positions if he gets elected because he wants to try and heal the country or at least work with the moderate ones. One such person may be John Kasich for a cabinet position.

I see this as possibly more on that theme.

This is not even in the same ballpark as your who will fill an existing cabinet position analogy. It’s more like will there be 15 cabinet positions or will there be 20 cabinet positions. The Biden answer is “we’ll see what happens”.

BTW, getting cabinet advice (from either 15 or 20 members) does not alter the fact that the POTUS still makes the call. The same is true with (court packing/expanding) legislation - the POTUS will either sign it or veto it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not up to RGB, its up to congress...

It’s also up to the POTUS to either sign a bill into law or veto it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is not even in the same ballpark as your who will fill an existing cabinet position analogy. It’s more like will there be 15 cabinet positions or will there be 20 cabinet positions. The Biden answer is “we’ll see what happens”.

BTW, getting cabinet advice (from either 15 or 20 members) does not alter the fact that the POTUS still makes the call. The same is true with (court packing/expanding) legislation - the POTUS will either sign it or veto it.

You are presuming the only recommendation will be to change the number of people in the court.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iii <-- this says nothing about how the court is structured administratively (beyond there being a supreme court and courts under it), just what the court is responsible for.

So basically this commission, if it happens, could recommend any number of things.

 

[ClaraD]

It’s also up to the POTUS to either sign a bill into law or veto it.

and if Biden is president and both houses are Democrat how do you plan to stop it?

 

[RetiredUSN]

It's not up to RGB, its up to congress...

Which is the main problem. (Congress)

You are supporting a party that has a petty and vindictive leadership.

Trump has every right under the Constitution to fill the seat and it's been done many many times in a presidents last year.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are presuming the only recommendation will be to change the number of people in the court.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iii <-- this says nothing about how the court is structured administratively (beyond there being a supreme court and courts under it), just what the court is responsible for.

So basically this commission, if it happens, could recommend any number of things.

The question was: does Biden favor court packing (adding more justices)? - a simple yes or no question.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The question was: does Biden favor court packing (adding more justices)? - a simple yes or no question.

I cannot read Biden's mind and he has not said one way or another.

But I honestly would prefer he puts in term limits at 18 years with the longest serving justice stepping down every two years so that each president can have their say for exactly 2 justices going forward. If one gets sick or has to leave early, then the timing gets adjusted to preserve that 2 per presidency cycle.

Another alternative is to have no direct SCOTUS members and have circuit judges serve for one or two years by lottery but any decisions needs to be at least 6/3 to avoid wild swings due to the "luck of the draw" -- constitutional scholars are currently debating this idea, but many think the constitution would allow it due to it having nothing to really say on the matter.

In both cases, it would make the SCOTUS resistant to packing by people like McConnell in the future, at least from a moral perspective.

 

[ttwtt78640]

and if Biden is president and both houses are Democrat how do you plan to stop it?

I don’t - it’s up to the POTUS to either sign a bill into law or to veto it. The only question is which of those options Biden intends to exercise concerning expanding the number of SCOTUS justices.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I cannot read Biden's mind and he has not said one way or another.

But I honestly would prefer he puts in term limits at 18 years with the longest serving justice stepping down every two years so that each president can have their say for exactly 2 justices going forward. If one gets sick or has to leave early, then the timing gets adjusted to preserve that 2 per presidency cycle.

Yep, Biden has repeatedly and clearly stated that he would make his intentions known before the election (which is already underway) and has not done so. Should I be expected to vote for such a liar?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yep, Biden has repeatedly and clearly stated that he would make his intentions known before the election (which is already underway) and has not done so. Should I be expected to vote for such a liar?

I consider this letting his intentions be known and it not being a lie.

Also, I doubt you were going to vote for him anyway.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I cannot read Biden's mind and he has not said one way or another.

So much for Joe's transparency.

He's a lap dog phony and dunce..............he always has been.

He was mocked by Obama and his cabinet because of who he is.

You could certainly see technocratic eye-rolling at times,” said Jen Psaki, the former White House communications director. Young White House aides frequently mocked Biden’s gaffes and lack of discipline in comparison to the almost clerical Obama. They would chortle at how Biden, like an elderly uncle at Thanksgiving, would launch into extended monologues that everyone had heard before.


Former FBI Director James Comey recalled in his book that “Obama would have a series of exchanges heading a conversation very clearly and crisply in Direction A. Then, at some point, Biden would jump in with, ‘Can I ask something, Mr. President?’” Comey continued: “Obama would politely agree, but something in his expression suggested he knew full well that for the next five or 10 minutes we would all be heading in Direction Z. After listening and patiently waiting, President Obama would then bring the conversation back on course.”

'Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f**k things up,' Obama has cautioned, according to one Democrat who spoke to Politico.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So much for Joe's transparency.

He's a lap dog phony and dunce..............he always has been.

He was mocked by Obama and his cabinet because of who he is.

You could certainly see technocratic eye-rolling at times,” said Jen Psaki, the former White House communications director. Young White House aides frequently mocked Biden’s gaffes and lack of discipline in comparison to the almost clerical Obama. They would chortle at how Biden, like an elderly uncle at Thanksgiving, would launch into extended monologues that everyone had heard before.


Former FBI Director James Comey recalled in his book that “Obama would have a series of exchanges heading a conversation very clearly and crisply in Direction A. Then, at some point, Biden would jump in with, ‘Can I ask something, Mr. President?’” Comey continued: “Obama would politely agree, but something in his expression suggested he knew full well that for the next five or 10 minutes we would all be heading in Direction Z. After listening and patiently waiting, President Obama would then bring the conversation back on course.”

'Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f**k things up,' Obama has cautioned, according to one Democrat who spoke to Politico.

I guess you are going to hate it if he becomes president then.

 

[rickc]

The typical liberal brain dead response.

Too cowardly to just say yes or no................... in fear of losing votes.

I will form a bipartisan commission? What a cop out.

You guys just don't get it. Congress has to act on it. Who knows what congress will look like next year. All Biden will do is sign or veto whatever congress decides to do.