Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes

[BabaVoss]

https://archive.is/HFdTP#selection-559.0-559.61


While I'm quite sure that are liberal friends and neighbors on this board will be all in for these changes, and likely more drastic ones, I would suggest that these proposed changes show an inclination from the left to effectively nullify the Constitution and implement a system of government without checks and balances. We would, if the Democrats get their way, end up with a system where the political parties hold all the power and the people hold none.

At what point in our history did Democrats decide that everyone that isn't a Democrat is an enemy of the nation and must be kneecapped so that the Democrat party can maintain, consolidate and expand their power?

That's a lot of spewing based on nothing. It's clear the SCOTUS is broken. Several justices are openly corrupted, and in several cases should have recused themselves but failed to do so. Term limits with staggered dates seems necessary at this point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Their up for election, but with advantage.

WW

Obliviously true, since most are in ‘safe’ districts/states, but the intent was for SCOTUS justices (once appointed and confirmed) to remain free of political pressure (influence?).

 

[stealthycat]

if he does, the precedence is set

when the Supreme Court doesn't do what you want them to, make changes


the destruction of Democracy RIGHT IN FRONT OF US - and Liberals squeal with joy

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not at all. Responding to:

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'.

The SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Moreover, bringing charges against someone, convincing a grand jury to bring an indictment and then holding a trial before a jury is not "lawfare". It is the very definition of justice. Screaming lawfare does not get you out of having to man up and admit you support a criminal for president.

 

[Greenbeard]

if he does, the precedence is set

when the Supreme Court doesn't do what you want them to, make changes


the destruction of Democracy RIGHT IN FRONT OF US - and Liberals squeal with joy

Term limits and ethics codes are not the destruction of democracy.

 

[stealthycat]

Term limits and ethics codes are not the destruction of democracy.

then why hasn't it happened before ?

because the SC didn't rule in Democrats favor on some issues and the Democrats are pissy they didn't get their way

GOP will shoot any chances of SC changes down hard, it'll never get done

 

[eohrnberger]

The SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

I'm talking about how the position of 'the courts have control over the presidency' is the wrong path to take.

Moreover, bringing charges against someone, convincing a grand jury to bring an indictment and then holding a trial before a jury is not "lawfare". It is the very definition of justice.

Screaming lawfare does not get you out of having to man up and admit you support a criminal for president.

The lawfare which has been conducted, the NY kangaroo court and dubious legal theory elevating those charges, the dismissed GA case, is on which you make this claim of 'criminal'?

Come out of the liberal / progressive media bubble. They didn't serve you well gaslighting you about Biden's failing condition, and they aren't serving you now on this either.

 

[gman]

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.

Could you please cite which any of the current members of SCOTUS said they didn’t like the previous decision

 

[Greenbeard]

then why hasn't it happened before ?

The brazen corruption of the current Court has forced the issue. The integrity of the Court must be restored if the institution is ever to regain the legitimacy it’s pissed away.

 

[stealthycat]

The brazen corruption of the current Court has forced the issue. The integrity of the Court must be restored if the institution is ever to regain the legitimacy it’s pissed away.

no, its not happened before because the Democratic party has changed so that now, you don't cross them or you get canceled (or shot)

watch what happens with George Clooney - dude is DONE in Hollywood. DONE .... he bucked the party, he's out

 

[Greenbeard]

no, its not happened before because the Democratic party has changed so that now, you don't cross them or you get canceled (or shot)

watch what happens with George Clooney - dude is DONE in Hollywood. DONE .... he bucked the party, he's out

Bizarre reaction to the suggestion that SCOTUS justices should be expected to behave ethically.

 

[stealthycat]

Bizarre reaction to the suggestion that SCOTUS justices should be expected to behave ethically.

Democrats wouldn't be saying ANYTHING had this court not rules on Roe, Chevron and Presidential immunity. Had they bowed to Democrats on those 3, there would be no talk of changing anything

would there ?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm talking about how the position of 'the courts have control over the presidency' is the wrong path to take.




The lawfare which has been conducted, the NY kangaroo court and dubious legal theory elevating those charges, the dismissed GA case, is on which you make this claim of 'criminal'?

Come out of the liberal / progressive media bubble. They didn't serve you well gaslighting you about Biden's failing condition, and they aren't serving you now on this either.

He is a convicted felon. A business fraud and has been called a rapist in a judge's ruling. If you want to vote for a criminal and sex offender, then go ahead, it is your right to do so. At least man up and own it though.

 

[eohrnberger]

He is a convicted felon.

By a heavily politically biased court, jury and process, the final resolution still unknown.
It's called lawfare, and the Democrats have been conducting it.

The whole process was for nothing more than to have some veneer of a foundation to make that accusation.

A business fraud

This would be opinion.

and has been called a rapist in a judge's ruling.

No criminal conviction here.

If you want to vote for a criminal and sex offender, then go ahead, it is your right to do so.

More opinion from you.

At least man up and own it though.

You should 'man up' that you are doing little but parroting the liberal / progressive media echo chamber.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

By a heavily politically biased court, jury and process, the final resolution still unknown.
It's called lawfare, and the Democrats have been conducting it.

The whole process was for nothing more than to have some veneer of a foundation to make that accusation.

You have no evidence there was any bias in the court or jury other than the fact that you don't like the outcome.

This would be opinion.

No, that would be the findings of a trial.

No criminal conviction here.

Right, he has been adjudicated a rapist in a court, not criminally convicted. Hang your hat on that one...

More opinion from you.


You should 'man up' that you are doing little but parroting the liberal / progressive media echo chamber.

Literally everything I have said is backed by rulings in a court of law. In contrast, your claims are nothing more than right wing mythology and conspiracy theories.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I think he got that with Trump v United States. There must be some other reason for him to want an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.

I would suggest that he start with congress. That is the smelliest swamp in the three separate but equal branches of government. Ethics mean very little there.

 

[eohrnberger]

You have no evidence there was any bias in the court or jury other than the fact that you don't like the outcome.

Echoing the liberal / progressive echo chamber, I see. No surprise.
There's plenty from those court proceedings and elevated charges which have been legitimately called into question.
You've just probably not heard about any of them considering your parroting of the liberal / progressive / Democrat media echo chamber.

No, that would be the findings of a trial.

Right, he has been adjudicated a rapist in a court, not criminally convicted. Hang your hat on that one...

Literally everything I have said is backed by rulings in a court of law.

See above.

In contrast, your claims are nothing more than right wing mythology and conspiracy theories.

See above. Just because you haven't been exposed to the legitimate questions about the court proceedings doesn't mean that those legitimate question don't exist.

 

[NatMorton]

Awesome, the SCOTUS is shitting all over us at this point. Long overdue IMHO.

That’s only because you have your head in the toilet.

 

[eohrnberger]

That’s only because you have your head in the toilet.

. . . that 'toilet' called the leftist lying lamestream media, AKA DNC Propaganda Organ, AKA Democrat's Pravda.

 

[NatMorton]

It seems that the Republican takeover of the court seeks to do just that. They want to remove proper checks on a criminal president and overturn any law that doesn’t suit the party. They want to rule over people’s private lives with religious zeal. The constitution is dead in Republican hands anyway.

Sorry, that’s nonsense. This court has shown far more judicial restraint than previous, activist courts, and we need look no further than the Dobbs decision. Rather than impose one side’s view on abortion law on the entire country they gave the issue back to voters, where it belongs.

If you want to make the written Constitution meaningless, give the likes of Sotomayor a working majority on the court.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It seems that the Republican takeover of the court seeks to do just that. They want to remove proper checks on a criminal president and overturn any law that doesn’t suit the party. They want to rule over people’s private lives with religious zeal. The constitution is dead in Republican hands anyway.

While I agree that the SCOTUS went too far in granting (absolute?) immunity from criminal prosecution to the POTUS for any ‘official act’, even to the extent of saying that the motive for the ‘official act’ can’t be considered, I disagree that they were wrong in overturning Roe/Casey decisions.

In the Roe/Casey decisions the SCOTUS decided that the stage (level?) of fetal development (expressed as time from conception) was (very?) important, yet cited nothing whatsoever in the Constitution to justify that claim.

 

[Greenbeard]

Sorry, that’s nonsense. This court has shown far more judicial restraint than previous, activist courts, and we need look no further than the Dobbs decision.

This is the most activist Court in decades.

judicial activism

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial activism refers to the practice of judges making rulings based on their policy views rather than their honest interpretation of the current law. Judicial activism is usually contrasted with the concept of judicial restraint, which is characterized by a focus on stare decisis and a reluctance to reinterpret the law.

 

[NatMorton]

While I agree that the SCOTUS went too far in granting (absolute?) immunity from criminal prosecution to the POTUS for any ‘official act’, even to the extent of saying that the motive for the ‘official act’ can’t be considered, I disagree that they were wrong in overturning Roe/Casey decisions. In the Roe/Casey decisions the SCOTUS decided that the stage (level?) of fetal development (expressed as time from conception) was (very?) important, yet cited nothing whatsoever in the Constitution to justify that claim.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s not a question of what SCOTUS chooses to grant or not grant. That is the path to judicial activism.

The question is what is the intent behind the Constitution as written? It doesn’t matter if you, me, or the justices think Presidential immunity is a good idea or not. We must ask whether those who ratified the Constitution wished there to be Presidential immunity. Everything else is noise.

 

[NatMorton]

This is the most activist Court in decades.

judicial activism

www.law.cornell.edu

Complete rubbish.

Back to Dobbs. Had this been an activist court, it would have imposed its preferred abortion law on all fifty states, just as the activist Roe majority did. This court didn’t do that, they returned the issue to the states and their voters, and there’s no getting around that fact.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s not a question of what SCOTUS chooses to grant or not grant. That is the path to judicial activism.

The question is what is the intent behind the Constitution as written? It doesn’t matter if you, me, or the justices think Presidential immunity is a good idea or not. We must ask whether those who ratified the Constitution wished there to be Presidential immunity. Everything else is noise.

OK, but consider the ‘official act’ (power) of the POTUS ordering a commercial airliner in flight to be shot down by the military. The motive (intent) for that ‘official act’ is clearly important.

If the motive (intent) was to stop a terrorist from using the aircraft as a weapon (which falls under the power of national defense) that is far different than if the motive (intent) was to get rid of a political rival (which is a criminal act).