View Full Version : Biden naming panel to study court reform, such as adding justices or term limits.
Whiskey_Bravo
04-09-21, 13:30
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/biden-supreme-court-commission-expansion/2021/04/09/id/1016993/
I see that they are going to keep pushing.
President Joe Biden on Friday named a panel to study reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court, such as adding justices or instituting term limits, fulfilling a campaign vow as progressives push to add more liberals to the conservative-leaning court.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/biden-supreme-court-commission-expansion/2021/04/09/id/1016993/
I see that they are going to keep pushing.
Gee, I wonder whatever will they decide to do?
The Rule of Law is in it's Death Throes. Depend on it at your peril.
titsonritz
04-09-21, 15:09
All in the name of unity. :rolleyes:
If Trump tried this they would have stormed the White House and the Capital.
That’s really unconstitutional.
I mean if laws don’t mean anything then laws don’t mean anything
SomeOtherGuy
04-09-21, 15:57
Guess which nine justices would get to decide if any "reform" is constitutional! Shades of Marbury v. Madison.
-
-
-
-
We're in one of those awkward times in history when the collapse is obvious, but the momentum of past practice keeps most people from saying anything about it.
How big of a donation do I have to make to get me a SCOTUS seat? What if I just get Hunter a hooker and some blow?
SomeOtherGuy
04-09-21, 16:17
How big of a donation do I have to make to get me a SCOTUS seat? What if I just get Hunter a hooker and some blow?
I doubt you have enough money. He was getting paid $1M a year to do absolutely nothing with his gas company "board seat."
Also, I seem to remember Sleepy Joe mumbling something about how all future SCT nominees would be non-white women, or something like that.
Punch Drunk Joe just released the results of the "study": the SC will be much more fair, efficient and diverse if he adds 7 more anti-American, communist judges.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-09-21, 18:06
What is the right way to phrase it? The left has been on a “democracy” kick since Trump. Obviously since they feel that the numbers and demographics are in their favor- and they are willing to corrupt that through immigration if it needs a kick..
The other side is what? The Republic or The Constitution ? Is it “Rights”? The idea that 50%+1 isn’t the final arbiter of what is just?
Democracy versus Rights? The Adams versus Jefferson fight of Populism versus perfection? Of people vs the powerful? To put it two different ways.
That the Dems could almost lose the House, tie the Senate, win the POTUS only with the help of the media elite- and the fundamentally change the US with partisan votes and parliamentary perversions—- and then solidify that advantage through perverting the positions of power....
The corrupt mob is coming...
Grand58742
04-09-21, 19:08
Term limits for the SCOTUS, but not for Congress.
We are living in the theater of the absurd.
That’s really unconstitutional.
I mean if laws don’t mean anything then laws don’t mean anything
Wrong.
The Constituition only establishes the Supreme Court. The Congress, by statute, sets the number of justices. Congress can't kick off justices and shrink the Court, but they could add 148 justices tomorrow if they wanted to. That's strictly in accordance with the rule of law.
Lawyers here weigh in but I'm confident that's the law.
Term limits for the SCOTUS, but not for Congress.
We are living in the theater of the absurd.
This was my thinking, I want term limits for congress.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-10-21, 14:56
I want term limits for staffers. That’s the real problem, the cabal behind the faces
.
Punch Drunk Joe just released the results of the "study": the SC will be much more fair, efficient and diverse if he adds 7 more anti-American, communist judges.
Did he release it, or are you joking?
Obviously someone would file a suit if they tried to stuff the court. Frankly it probably is legal for them to add more seats to the court, but it would totally delegitimize it. That would put Roberts in a really sticky wicket. He’s always said he doesn’t want the Supreme Court to become some political circus, but this would make it the biggest political circus joke of all time. Even though maybe legal, you don’t most have to vote against it to save his supreme court for becoming the bullshit that he fears it is.
Far bigger threat to the judiciary than anything Trump tried to do.
Some of this was brought on by recent events.
Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.
Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.
So now they complain about politicization?
Some of this was brought on by recent events.
Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.
Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.
So now they complain about politicization?You act so surprised, this is the way the game is played with the majority on both sides.
Look at the opposition for very qualified judges and cabinet positions. It used to be if there wasn't a reason not to approve senators would recognize expertise even if they disagreed with the position. The Dems weaponized appointments starting with Bork, finally tuned it with Clarence Thomas, and executed ever since.
Wrong.
The Constituition only establishes the Supreme Court. The Congress, by statute, sets the number of justices. Congress can't kick off justices and shrink the Court, but they could add 148 justices tomorrow if they wanted to. That's strictly in accordance with the rule of law.
Lawyers here weigh in but I'm confident that's the law.
Nothing in the Constitution mentions Congress screwing with the number of sCOTUS justices, just lower courts. That being said, the Adams administration and federal cronies dropped the original court's 6 justices to 5 which is another example of how early the powers that be indicated their desire to violate their own rules and that there was no punishment for those violations.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-21, 12:18
Some of this was brought on by recent events.
Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.
Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.
So now they complain about politicization?
LEt's be perfectly clear. Garland isn't on SCOTUS because Obama decided he wanted the issue more than he wanted Garland on the court. Obama did as close to nothing as he could do to get him a hearing. Garland was a fairly middle of the road pick, and the left didn't really want him on the court. They want RBG clones. I'd say that Garland wasn't going to get into SCOTUS even if HRC had won.
What is the difference of keeping a corpse like RBG on the court to keep a pick coming up versus chilling a pick like Garland. That's all politics.
Obama was a true dead duck. Trump has another term ahead of him. Biden is only going to be a one-termer, why give 1 one-termer the pick over another one-termer?
That is all politics. Adding seats to SCOTUS isn't politics, that is changing the game. Doing that and then adding states.... that is all beyond 'politics'- that is full on power grabs.
Nothing in the Constitution mentions Congress screwing with the number of sCOTUS justices, just lower courts. That being said, the Adams administration and federal cronies dropped the original court's 6 justices to 5 which is another example of how early the powers that be indicated their desire to violate their own rules and that there was no punishment for those violations.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
28 US code section 1
I thought so. Congress sets the number of justices and could pack the court any time they wanted to.
Grand58742
04-12-21, 17:51
28 US code section 1
I thought so. Congress sets the number of justices and could pack the court any time they wanted to.
Do you agree they should?
28 US code section 1
I thought so. Congress sets the number of justices and could pack the court any time they wanted to.
Read this:
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
then go find the article and section that mentions Congress adjusting the number of sCOTUS judges.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.