Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes

[Terryj]

Correct. Term limits would need a Constitutional amendment.

On the other hand ethics laws that apply to the court would not. Ethics laws applicable to the courts simply become part of the United States Code and therefore a basis for impeachment.

WW

I believe that Justice Thomas should be impeached for the implied ethics violations, even though he said these were gifts the optics of these say other wise.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I believe that Justice Thomas should be impeached for the implied ethics violations, even though he said these were gifts the optics of these say other wise.

You may not have heard, but bribes are OK now.

Just call them "gratuities" and pay them after the fact and you (royal you, not you personally) are good to go.

WW

 

[Terryj]

While watching MAGAs parroting liberals is entertaining, doesn't do much and just shows your own hypocrisy, again.

That said, when you have court justices that engaged in future planning to bring down a 50 year precedent, before they even get the seat, scratch out an immunity for the most powerful person in our nation, and are caught on tape acknowledging they're bias, something needs to be done. SC's authority isn't the end word, they still work for the people of this nation and the majority of people in this nation have serious suspicion of the SC and think they need shorter terms, and some accountability.

It's simply not going to be as easy as treating the SC like our parents and calling it a day. That's not their job.

The decisions of the SCOTUS are not set in stone, Congress can over ride a Supreme Court decision by proposing new legislation that doesn't violate the Constitution.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The decisions of the SCOTUS are not set in stone, Congress can over ride a Supreme Court decision by proposing new legislation that doesn't violate the Constitution.

I'm hoping dems sweep in 24' and pick up the house.

 

[redbeer]

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.

How dare anyone question his thoughts and or policies, for if he doesn't get the decisions he wants he threatens them with stacking the court, now it's revamping the Judicial Branch. The Biden administration is an authoritarian oligarchy.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

How dare anyone question his thoughts and or policies, for if he doesn't get the decisions he wants he threatens them with stacking the court, now it's revamping the Judicial Branch. The Biden administration is an authoritarian oligarchy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I believe that Justice Thomas should be impeached for the implied ethics violations, even though he said these were gifts the optics of these say other wise.

Optics are irrelevant.

Democrats simply want him off SCOTUS because they don't agree with his rulings and votes, mostly because the SCOTUS remains "Republican appointee" dominant. Doesn't matter that his written opinions are typically grounded in Constitutional law and also often in precedent, the Democrats need to get rid of him. SCOTUS is currently 6 Republican - 3 Democrat appointees.

Yet they tend to forget this was not always the case, and in those years when Democrats actually controlled SCOTUS they had no problems with racist rulings (as I pointed out in a prior post). I also pointed out that during the 4 Term period of FDR he would often use the THREAT of increasing the SCOTUS membership in order to compel "rulings" he wanted.

This is all a piece of the Democrat "PLAN" to make the USA a perpetual one-Party State. Everything that they have ever done has been geared toward that purpose. They have a history of election shenanigans from poll taxes, reading/writing tests, stuffing ballot boxes, etc. "By any means necessary."

From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary”

In the Age of Rage, no institution or process appears inviolate. When the majority of the Supreme Court shifted right, liberal academics and members demanded court packing — a practice long …

jonathanturley.org

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Optics are irrelevant.

People simply want him off SCOTUS because they don't agree with his rulings and votes, mostly because the SCOTUS remains "Republican appointee" dominant.

They tend to forget this was not always the case, and in those years when Democrats controlled SCOTUS they had no problems with racist rulings (as I pointed out in a prior post). I also pointed out that during the 4 Term period of FDR he would often use the THREAT of increasing the SCOTUS membership in order to compel "rulings" he wanted.

Nobody has problems with the Taney Court?

You might want to read a book.

 

[redbeer]

Forgive me for a slight correction. It is not "Biden" who wants "absolute power." He is a mentally and physically declining sock-puppet for the Democrat "leadership" to manipulate. He gets the blame, they get what they want.

Yes, you're right, ole Joe is the oligarchy's puppet in charge.

But the Democrats have frequently been floating the idea of an expanded SCOTUS since as far back at least as Franklin Roosevelt. This in order to get control over that "co-equal Branch" in order to push their ongoing agendas.

Yeah, they've never quite liked our 3 branch system of government.....they don't like/appreciate opposition or cooperation.

Funny though, during a period when SCOTUS was mostly made up of Southern Democrat appointees, we had Dred Scott and Separate but Equal decisions in favor of racist ideology.

That's the deal with Democrats. It's their way or change the rules to get their way.

Even today, they're in favor of separation and continually only see color. They simply cannot exist without this division.

 

[redbeer]

How do term limits on justices give Biden absolute power?

Term limits is a cover for the "ethics" proposed, so they can impeach justices who do not tow party line in giving favorable decisions to the liberal left.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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?

For once, I wish you all would just be honest.

In the past, you all screamed about activist judges, SC was fixed, everything needs to be changed, etc.

But when the court is packed with your guys, suddenly everything you failed against…is now fine and hunky dory and why would we change the system that we once demanded be changed?

Just be honest. You want it all your way, like spoiled brats.

Quit flip flopping and admit that you want only the GOP, conservatives, MAGA-mites in power and everyone else gets banned.

Just admit it. Be honest that you don’t want America, you just want all things your way.

 

[trixare4kids]

Optics are irrelevant.

Democrats simply want him off SCOTUS because they don't agree with his rulings and votes, mostly because the SCOTUS remains "Republican appointee" dominant. Doesn't matter that his written opinions are typically grounded in Constitutional law and also often in precedent, the Democrats need to get rid of him. SCOTUS is currently 6 Republican - 3 Democrat appointees.

Yet they tend to forget this was not always the case, and in those years when Democrats actually controlled SCOTUS they had no problems with racist rulings (as I pointed out in a prior post). I also pointed out that during the 4 Term period of FDR he would often use the THREAT of increasing the SCOTUS membership in order to compel "rulings" he wanted.

This is all a piece of the Democrat "PLAN" to make the USA a perpetual one-Party State. Everything that they have ever done has been geared toward that purpose. They have a history of election shenanigans from poll taxes, reading/writing tests, stuffing ballot boxes, etc. "By any means necessary."

From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary”

In the Age of Rage, no institution or process appears inviolate. When the majority of the Supreme Court shifted right, liberal academics and members demanded court packing — a practice long …

jonathanturley.org

You nailed it! If I might add.

The plan is to convince the whining illiberals that they are entitled to the Supreme Court that delivers like Santa Claus on Christmas morning.

Why? Biden will tell his base anything to snag their votes knowing full well what he's proposing has a very unlikely chance of coming to fruition.

One, if he stays in the race, what chance will he have if he loses, and possibly compromises the loss of both sides of congress. Just ask Adam Schiff about this. Possibly the only thing Schiff has ever been correct on in his entire life.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

This corrupt Court is running amok and there are zero checks on the robed politicians comprising it.

 

[trixare4kids]

Term limits is a cover for the "ethics" proposed, so they can impeach justices who do not tow party line in giving favorable decisions to the liberal left.

They'd throw everyone who got in their way in jail if they could. Oh wait... Where have we seen something like this lately?

Thankfully, our founders made sure to have checks and balances in place so that the tryrants cannot get their own way.

 

[Lutherf]

For once, I wish you all would just be honest.

In the past, you all screamed about activist judges, SC was fixed, everything needs to be changed, etc.

But when the court is packed with your guys, suddenly everything you failed against…is now fine and hunky dory and why would we change the system that we once demanded be changed?

Just be honest. You want it all your way, like spoiled brats.

Quit flip flopping and admit that you want only the GOP, conservatives, MAGA-mites in power and everyone else gets banned.

Just admit it. Be honest that you don’t want America, you just want all things your way.

Not sure what you're getting at. I've taken issue with LOTS of SCOTUS rulings. At no point have I suggested packing the court or impeaching one of the justices. The court sometimes rules in a way I disagree with. Sometimes they rule in the way I prefer. I try to look at the decisions and where I see crap I say so. After that, life goes on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Term limits is a cover for the "ethics" proposed, so they can impeach justices who do not tow party line in giving favorable decisions to the liberal left.

Conviction of impeachment requires the House to approve by a majority and the Senate to convict with 2/3rds concurring.

There is no way an impeachment conviction occurs along a "party line".

WW

 

[holbritter]

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?

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.

 

[holbritter]

I agree, but would like to see civil asset forfeiture declared to be unconstitutional.

The irony of congress critters term limiting the POTUS (and perhaps the SCOTUS), yet not themselves is rich.

Congress should have term limits as well.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I believe that Justice Thomas should be impeached for the implied ethics violations, even though he said these were gifts the optics of these say other wise.

You must PROVE that his input on decisions was affected by such "gifts." "Otherwise" a person is presumed INNOCENT until factually proven guilty.

Now I know that the LEFT thinks that simply by casting aspersions or slamming a negative label onto someone equates to being factual proof, but that's not how things actually work.

 

[trixare4kids]

You must PROVE that his input on decisions was affected by such "gifts." "Otherwise" a person is presumed INNOCENT until factually proven guilty.

Oh, ha! They don't care about the facts. They presume guilty until proven innocent. Nancy P.'s rule, if you recall.

Now I know that the LEFT thinks that simply by casting aspersions or slamming a negative label onto someone equates to being factual proof, but that's not how things actually work.

That's what they've been doing for the last eight years. It all started with Russia, Russia, Russia.

 

[Greenbeard]

You must PROVE that his input on decisions was affected by such "gifts." "Otherwise" a person is presumed INNOCENT until factually proven guilty.

Exactly, just like when you steer a public contract and accept a $13,000 "gratuity" from the beneficiary after the fact. Just good government in action!

 

[PoS]

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?

Libs are fascists at heart.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

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.

 

[redbeer]

Conviction of impeachment requires the House to approve by a majority and the Senate to convict with 2/3rds concurring.

There is no way an impeachment conviction occurs along a "party line".

WW

Totally election year pandering to his base.....look how they became all giddy on the forum, lol. They already allowed protesters to go to the justices houses and permitted them to threat their families, but it didn't work, so now it's threat of imprisonment and loss of career, if they don't follow party line decisions. This is looking more and more like Mafioso type of activity. All happily accepted by their base.....very strange.

 

[gman]

Well, they've lost the support and trust of the majority of Americans. Can't say it's going to sit well, and Biden is suggesting only what the majority of people in this country has been asking for because that's his job.

If he’s listening to the majority of the people he should bow out now. He’s groping at straws and pandering once again to the progressives. Elections do have consequences and this could set off a shit storm of tit for tat.