Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes

[holbritter]

1. There is already a legal code of ethics. It is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Table of Contents

Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Table of Contents with links to the rules

www.americanbar.org

2. Every State Bar Association has Rules of Professional Conduct based on the Model.

3. Judges at all levels are typically lawyers, although they may be elected or appointed to office depending on jurisdiction, type, and level of Court.

SCOTUS members are also typically lawyers, and are usually appointed after serving on lower Courts. Here is a source for those interested:

How Are Federal Judges Selected?

Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They include Supreme Court justices as well as appeals and district court judges.

www.thoughtco.com

I am opposed to terms limits for the SCOTUS, because it is my opinion that we need a stable foundation for interpretation and rulings on Constitutional issues and the Law. For one thing, it serves to prevent constant efforts to "change" interpretations to suit a political agenda.

IMO if one is being honest about their support for this push by the Democrats, they would admit that their reason is to do exactly that, change things to suit THEIR political agendas.

I am being honest and it's not for the reason you state. Even a 20 year limit would be good, with an option for re-appointment, imo. That's enough time for a stable foundation. I believe anyone in a power position for a length of time, can become too comfortable and are susceptible to corruption.

 

[Greenbeard]

I am opposed to terms limits for the SCOTUS, because it is my opinion that we need a stable foundation for interpretation and rulings on Constitutional issues and the Law. For one thing, it serves to prevent constant efforts to "change" interpretations to suit a political agenda.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The Republican party has become so corrupt that Democrats are going to have to fix that too.

It sucks that Democrats have to do all the heavy lifting every damn time.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm not opposed to establishing term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code. Don't see why anyone would be against that. That's about the only changes that make sense are aren't done for purely political reasons.

This whole proposal from Biden is nothing more than political pandering done fro political reasons.
. . .

1. There is already a legal code of ethics. It is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Table of Contents

Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Table of Contents with links to the rules

www.americanbar.org

2. Every State Bar Association has Rules of Professional Conduct based on the Model.

3. Judges at all levels are typically lawyers, although they may be elected or appointed to office depending on jurisdiction, type, and level of Court.

SCOTUS members are also typically lawyers, and are usually appointed after serving on lower Courts. Here is a source for those interested:

How Are Federal Judges Selected?

Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They include Supreme Court justices as well as appeals and district court judges.

www.thoughtco.com

I am opposed to terms limits for the SCOTUS, because it is my opinion that we need a stable foundation for interpretation and rulings on Constitutional issues and the Law. For one thing, it serves to prevent constant efforts to "change" interpretations to suit a political agenda.

IMO if one is being honest about their support for this push by the Democrats, they would admit that their reason is to do exactly that, change things to suit THEIR political agendas.

As the Capt' already points out, there are ethics guidelines and professional conduct expectations already in place.

I'd not be looking for implementing term limits on SCOTUS justices. The legislative branch doesn't have them either (I'd be more inclined to adopt them here).
Both the executive branch and the legislative branch have turn over based on elections, SCOTUS needs to be separate from that, to be a check and balance to those swings.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Strange.....apparently Biden wants absolute power where he gets everything he wants without any checks or balances. The Third Branch of our government.....who needs it, says Biden.

Yeah, because a president considering a constitutional amendment that eliminates the broad immunity of presidents wants to do just that... If you eliminate the broad immunity of presidents, you are saying that the courts should have a check on the power of presidents.

 

[holbritter]

This whole proposal from Biden is nothing more than political pandering done fro political reasons.
. . .

As the Capt' already points out, there are ethics guidelines and professional conduct expectations already in place.

I'd not be looking for implementing term limits on SCOTUS justices. The legislative branch doesn't have them either (I'd be more inclined to adopt them here).
Both the executive branch and the legislative branch have turn over based on elections, SCOTUS needs to be separate from that, to be a check and balance to those swings.

Wouldn't 20 years be enough for that?

 

[j brown's body]

The last time the rules relating to the Supreme Court were changed, McConnell changed them to make it possible for the senate to confirm a nominee in an election year. The previous change before that involved McConnell making it impossible to confirm a nominee in an election year.

Now the Dems want to play politics with the Court, lol!

 

[j brown's body]

Wouldn't 20 years be enough for that?

This Court has needed scarcely one year.

 

[holbritter]

This Court has needed scarcely one year.

After many many years of no change

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah, because a president considering a constitutional amendment that eliminates the broad immunity of presidents wants to do just that... If you eliminate the broad immunity of presidents, you are saying that

the courts should have a check on the power of presidents.

More so the check will be the bogus and frivolous law suites political opponents bring into those courts. It's not like we haven't already see this.

Further, seems that the Democrats are in fact considering the continued assault via that mechanism:

U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States​

U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States

Press release for the Surgeon General’s Advisory on Firearm Violence, declaring firearm violence in America a public health crisis.

www.hhs.gov

What did the Democrats do the last time they declared a public health emergency?

Further, it hasn't gone unnoticed this tactic:

Abuse of Public Nuisance Tort Litigation Is the Real Nuisance (1)

John Shu, an attorney and legal commentator who served in both Bush administrations, says recent public nuisance lawsuits against major energy companies lack merit and contravene separation of powers.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[eohrnberger]

Wouldn't 20 years be enough for that?

How long have some members been in Congress?

 

[holbritter]

This Court has needed scarcely one year.

You know what irks me about the Roe vs Wade opinion? That the 1973 decision was never shored up, or made more definitive.


legalizing the procedure nationwide based on majority opinion that declares a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment is and was just waiting to be challenged. That the 14th doesn't seem to implicitly mention 'right to privacy' without a further interpretation makes it more unstable. That it stood that long was surprising to me, as I always thought it needed to be a much stronger protection. I blame others for relying on it for so long.

 

[gman]

I

The last time the rules relating to the Supreme Court were changed, McConnell changed them to make it possible for the senate to confirm a nominee in an election year. The previous change before that involved McConnell making it impossible to confirm a nominee in an election year.

Now the Dems want to play politics with the Court, lol!

I don’t believe it was a rule so much as senatorial courtesy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How long have some members been in Congress?

Not a valid analogy, since congress critters face an election every 2 (in the House) or 6 (in the Senate) years.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not a valid analogy, since congress critters face an election every 2 (in the House) or 6 (in the Senate) years.

While I would be willing to entertain the discussion and exploration of SCOTUS term limits, as of right now, I'm leaning more against them.
Oh well.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on them the initial support of them, or not.

 

[j brown's body]

I

I don’t believe it was a rule so much as senatorial courtesy.

Whatever you want to call it, and let's be clear, following senatorial courtesies is as important to protecting our democacy every bit as much as following the rules and laws, the point is, both sides play politics with the court. Now, more than ever, since this current court has no respect for precedent.

 

[j brown's body]

While I would be willing to entertain the discussion and exploration of SCOTUS term limits, as of right now, I'm leaning more against them.
Oh well.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on them the initial support of them, or not.

Understandable, since your side controls the court.

 

[gman]

Whatever you want to call it, and let's be clear, following senatorial courtesies is as important to protecting our democacy every bit as much as following the rules and laws, the point is, both sides play politics with the court. Now, more than ever, since this current court has no respect for precedent.

If this SCOTUS has no respect for precedent, what do we call previous SCOTUS decisions in years past which have been reversed prior to Roe v. Wade?

 

[j brown's body]

If this SCOTUS has no respect for precedent, what do we call previous SCOTUS decisions in years past which have been reversed prior to Roe v. Wade?

Could you provide an example! My understanding us that previous decisions are overturned when there us new evidence and information that causes them to reconsider them, not because justices didn't like them.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

More so the check will be the bogus and frivolous law suites political opponents bring into those courts. It's not like we haven't already see this.

Further, seems that the Democrats are in fact considering the continued assault via that mechanism:

U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States​

U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States

Press release for the Surgeon General’s Advisory on Firearm Violence, declaring firearm violence in America a public health crisis.

www.hhs.gov

What did the Democrats do the last time they declared a public health emergency?

Further, it hasn't gone unnoticed this tactic:

Abuse of Public Nuisance Tort Litigation Is the Real Nuisance (1)

John Shu, an attorney and legal commentator who served in both Bush administrations, says recent public nuisance lawsuits against major energy companies lack merit and contravene separation of powers.

news.bloomberglaw.com

What an absurd comparison. That has nothing to do with immunity for presidents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not a valid analogy, since congress critters face an election every 2 (in the House) or 6 (in the Senate) years.

Their up for election, but with advantage.

WW

 

[Captain Adverse]

Wouldn't 20 years be enough for that?

IMO? No.

Article III Section 2 establishes the tenure of a SCOTUS member as a lifetime appointment, i.e. held during good behavior. A member of SCOTUS can be impeached, but in order to change tenure it would require a Constitutional Amendment, not an act of Congress.

A SCOTUS member can resign, be impeached for "bad behavior" of some kind or another, or die.

IMO the only people who want to change this situation are those who seek to benefit from it.

 

[eohrnberger]

What an absurd comparison. That has nothing to do with immunity for presidents.

Not at all. Responding to:

. . .
the courts should have a check on the power of presidents.

Given the Democrat's already obvious use of lawfare, next up will be these frivolous lawsuits based on the 'Abuse of Public Nuisance Tort Litigation'.
This is what courts having 'a check on the power of presidents' will exactly look like, frivolous lawsuits based on the 'Abuse of Public Nuisance Tort Litigation'.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I agree. Constitutional amendments, like adding new states, are a thing of the past.

I don’t know. I’d like to see Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands join as a single state. Likewise with Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands.

No to DC statehood though. If they want to be part of a state they can rejoin Maryland.

As for Constitutional amendments, given the left’s desire for abortion rights and their desire to make it a perpetual campaign issue, I am quite surprised to not already hear a steady drumbeat for a Constitutional amendment on the matter. I can only assume that they are waiting until they have control of the House of Representatives before beginning the campaign.

 

[bubbabgone]

You didn't have a problem with stacking SCOTUS with Federalist Society judges who lied their ass off about Roe to get on the bench, @Lutherf. You didn't have a problem anytime they threw out precedent that MAGA wanted thrown out. You thought an attempt to destroy the constitutional order and install Trump as Leader in Perpetuity was a "kegger".

But Biden voicing support for changing the Supreme Court so that it has to actually have ethics and term limits is an abomination? Why? 'Cause then the lying Federalist Society justices you like might have to stop taking bribes, and won't be on for ever?



Having ethics is nullifying the constitution? Having term limits is nullifying the constitution? But murdering a bunch of democrats and installing an election loser as Dear Leader .... isn't?


I'm starting to think that maybe these have all just been POE posts. You can't possibly be taking yourself seriously right now.

In order for your comment to have credibility you'd have to cite something specific in the SCOTUS rulings you object to that violated "constitutional order".
Just saying "threw out precedent" or repeating a phrase you heard like "install Trump as Leader in Perpetuity" isn't enough.
You'd have to be constitutionally specific.
Can you do that?