Biden’s plan for Supreme Court reform

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-presidential-immunity-term-limits/74583088007/

Term limits and a code of ethics. Also a Constitutional amendment limiting Presidential immunity though that’s not really a Supreme Court reform. 

None of this is new. The term limit idea was actually pushed by many conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation, right after gay marriage was made legal. It will be amusing to watch them oppose it now. 

Personally I think the term limits is a good idea. I have always been opposed to term limits for public office holders because elections solve that. But this is not that and lifetime appointments have always seemed foolish to me. 

I’m less sure about the code of conduct because I’m not sure how it would ever be enforced and any investigation would immediately become a political tool. In the worst scenario impeachment already takes care of that, at least theoretically.

Thoughts? 

[Strike 5,186]

Every one is a non starter.  Just words.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

And of course this is all a theoretical discussion. Biden is proposing it for political reasons but it has no chance of going somewhere. For any of this to happen you need Kamala to win, a Democratic House majority, 60 Democrats in the Senate, and all of them agreeing on this issue. That’s not happening. So it’s fun to discuss but ultimately meaningless at least for the foreseeable future. 

[supermike80 1,804]

Waste of time.   But it gives him some political points I guess.  YAY DEMS!

[IndyColtsFan 325]

7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Waste of time.   But it gives him some political points I guess.  YAY DEMS!

It is a waste of time, although it's sorely needed, that and age limits on presidential candidates.

[Thornton Melon 605]

SC term limits is fine, but Congress has zero authority to implement it. A constitutional amendment is required.

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

A Code of Ethics seems possible as it would comport with the requirement in Article III, Section 1 that the Justices may remain in office so long as they exhibit good behavior.  A Code of Ethics would simply set forth and codify "good behavior".  One could even argue such a Code is long overdue and would provide guidance to ther Justices in conducting themselves.

 

Passage of term limits would mean Congress, at the behest and urging of the Executive branch seeks to limit the powers of the judicial branch.  One can revisit the efforts to confine the presidency to only two terms and perhaps extrapolate that such an effort could not be legislative but may well require a Constitutional Amendment.  Given the recent difficulties in amending our Constitution I do not see this happening.  unless Biden proposes this as a Constitutional Amendment and works towards its passage tirelessly one can only conclude this is just red meat for the left and insincerely proposed and so is intentionally divisive.  Biden's disrespect to the Court has been ongoing and is, in my estimation, shameful.  He displayed his contempt for the Court during his SOTU and continues everytime they make a ruling. His actions can, and in my estimation, should be read as an attempt to delegitimize a co-equal branch of government.  That is an attack on our democracy.

[seafoam1 2,803]

10 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

SC term limits is fine, but Congress has zero authority to implement it. A constitutional amendment is required.

Slow down there. Liberals are still confused about this so called "constitution".

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

I don’t understand why term limits would require an amendment if, after FDR, Congress was able to limit Presidential terms to 2 by enacting a law. Whats the difference? Serious question. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,702]

Biden continues to target the Black Man.  

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t understand why term limits would require an amendment if, after FDR, Congress was able to limit Presidential terms to 2 by enacting a law. Whats the difference? Serious question. 

22 Amendment.  Congress probably never properly had that power on its own.  The matter was raised in Congress over the years but to my understanding and memory Congress never got further than debating the matter before ultimately determining they needed a Constitutional Amendment, the 22nd Amendment.

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

Biden continues to target the Black Man.  

Biden is now in the wind. The liberal messiah now be kameltoe. 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

Wonder why this wasn't important to the Dems before Trump made a few appointments.

[MDC 7,130]

Just now, BrahmaBulls said:

Wonder why this wasn't important to the Dems before Trump made a few appointments.

Same reason it was important to Reps before Trump’s appointments.

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, BrahmaBulls said:

Wonder why this wasn't important to the Dems before Trump made a few appointments.

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, MDC said:

Same reason it was important to Reps before Trump’s appointments.

That doesn't make sense. 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Same reason it was important to Reps before Trump’s appointments.

The Reps threatened to stack the court and change the rules?  I missed that.

[TheNewGirl 1,347]

13 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

SC term limits is fine, but Congress has zero authority to implement it. A constitutional amendment is required.

Out of the majority of what POTUS and potential POTUS talk about what they are "going to to do" and how the American public freaks out, I wish this was one of the main things people understood about it all. Most of what they spout off would take amendments, majority votes from both Senate/House, etc And the amount of time and work for these to happen make them near to impossible. 

 

 

[seafoam1 2,803]

See?

7 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Slow down there. Liberals are still confused about this so called "constitution".

 

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t understand why term limits would require an amendment if, after FDR, Congress was able to limit Presidential terms to 2 by enacting a law. Whats the difference? Serious question. 

 

[Fireballer 2,639]

32 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-presidential-immunity-term-limits/74583088007/

Term limits and a code of ethics. Also a Constitutional amendment limiting Presidential immunity though that’s not really a Supreme Court reform. 

None of this is new. The term limit idea was actually pushed by many conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation, right after gay marriage was made legal. It will be amusing to watch them oppose it now. 

Personally I think the term limits is a good idea. I have always been opposed to term limits for public office holders because elections solve that. But this is not that and lifetime appointments have always seemed foolish to me. 

I’m less sure about the code of conduct because I’m not sure how it would ever be enforced and any investigation would immediately become a political tool. In the worst scenario impeachment already takes care of that, at least theoretically.

Thoughts? 

How many terms do you think a justice should be able to serve?

[kilroy69 1,216]

47 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-presidential-immunity-term-limits/74583088007/

Term limits and a code of ethics. Also a Constitutional amendment limiting Presidential immunity though that’s not really a Supreme Court reform. 

None of this is new. The term limit idea was actually pushed by many conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation, right after gay marriage was made legal. It will be amusing to watch them oppose it now. 

Personally I think the term limits is a good idea. I have always been opposed to term limits for public office holders because elections solve that. But this is not that and lifetime appointments have always seemed foolish to me. 

I’m less sure about the code of conduct because I’m not sure how it would ever be enforced and any investigation would immediately become a political tool. In the worst scenario impeachment already takes care of that, at least theoretically.

Thoughts? 

A lame duck president proposing historic new rules. Let's see how far that gets. 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

Interesting too in that historically longer serving Justices became increasingly liberal over the course of their service.  By term limiting then liberals would be stopping that evolution process.

 

Of course with today's polarization past trends may well be meaningless.

 

Time to cut the grass.  See you all later.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

Leftists once again attacking our institutions. 

[cyclone24 1,912]

They wouldnt bring it up whatsoever if they were getting rulings they like.

Im old enough to remember when the left used to whine about the REPUBLICANS being a threat to democracy 

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

19 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

See?

Totally nailed it here.  

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

How many terms do you think a justice should be able to serve?

I dunno. Fair question. Also how long should the terms be? I don’t know that either. I’m in favor of a limitation of some sort. The rest is up for discussion. 
 

10 years per term? That’s off the top of my head. Then the President could renominate the Justice or nominate somebody else. If we did that we wouldn’t need a maximum number of terms- so long as a Justice was successfully renominated he could go on indefinitely until he died. Again I’m just spouting ideas here, haven’t really considered it. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

Interesting too in that historically longer serving Justices became increasingly liberal over the course of their service.  By term limiting then liberals would be stopping that evolution process.

 

Of course with today's polarization past trends may well be meaningless.

 

Time to cut the grass.  See you all later.

It's true. Only the people with a sound mind and body are conservatives. The young and stupid and the old and infirmed are liberal.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

I give Biden credit. At least in his lame duck time in office he’s doing a lot more than Obama did with his. Lazy. Well, he did spy on Trump, so there’s that. Biden even outdid him there. Biden had him indicted. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Interesting too in that historically longer serving Justices became increasingly liberal over the course of their service.  By term limiting then liberals would be stopping that evolution process.

 

Of course with today's polarization past trends may well be meaningless.

 

Time to cut the grass.  See you all later.

This is true.  It's also why Obama & Biden made sure they got two really young (and unqualified), activists in Kagan and Brown-Jackson in there.  The longer they're on, the more left they go and they're already at socialist level.  By the time they hit their 60's, they'll probably be full blown communists.

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

26 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

22 Amendment.  Congress probably never properly had that power on its own.  The matter was raised in Congress over the years but to my understanding and memory Congress never got further than debating the matter before ultimately determining they needed a Constitutional Amendment, the 22nd Amendment.

Forbes

So this is the legal workaround to get around an amendment.  Of course it being a law, I'm sure someone would challenge it, where guess who would get the final say.  So I have my doubts that it would work.

Quote

 

After their term is up, justices wouldn’t resign completely, but would only hear a smaller subset of cases: Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear most cases, while other justices would join in for cases that originate in the Supreme Court, which include disputes between states or foreign officials.

ARE TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Biden’s Supreme Court commission noted it was “divided” on the question of whether imposing term limits through a congressional statute, rather than amending the Constitution, would be constitutional. Article III of the Constitution states judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” which has been interpreted to mean justices have to hold lifetime appointments. The commission said Congress could get around the issue by having only the most recent justices hear most cases, which originate in lower courts, while still keeping the older ones on to hear cases that originate in the Supreme Court. That strategy, as Democrats’ legislation lays out, would create the “effective equivalent” of term limits without actually violating Article III by kicking justices off the court. Proponents also point to previous Supreme Court precedent to suggest Congress is allowed to change which justices hear cases originating from the lower courts (the ones that only the nine most recent justices would hear), but just can’t alter “original jurisdiction” cases that all justices would still hear under the legislation. Ultimately, however, the commission noted lawmakers should “at a minimum” give the idea of imposing term limits via statute “serious deliberation” given the possible constitutional issues it raises. If lawmakers do take that approach, the commission suggested they should also try to pass a constitutional amendment alongside it that specifies the size of the court, which would clarify the proposal isn’t kicking justices off the court in violation of Article III.

 

 

[seafoam1 2,803]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This is true.  It's also why Obama & Biden made sure they got two really young (and unqualified), activists in Kagan and Brown-Jackson in there.  The longer they're on, the more left they go and they're already at socialist level.  By the time they hit their 60's, they'll probably be full blown communists.

I just want to know, how the fock a female, can be appointed to the supreme court if she is unable to say, even in layman's terms, what a woman is. It's focking surreal. 

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

This is just to manufacture an issue for the Democrats to run on, since all they currently have is baby killing.

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

4 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I just want to know, how the fock a female, can be appointed to the supreme court if she is unable to say, even in layman's terms, what a woman is. It's focking surreal. 

Regardless of whether it was a man or woman, it's ridiculous.  Also, Kagan never was actually a practicing lawyer.  How the heck could she even be a judge???  Every judge and lawyer in the US should've had a problem with her appointment

[squistion 1,952]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Regardless of whether it was a man or woman, it's ridiculous.  Also, Kagan never was actually a practicing lawyer.  How the heck could she even be a judge???

Not true, she worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly, LLP, from 1989-1991.

[Fireballer 2,639]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I dunno. Fair question. Also how long should the terms be? I don’t know that either. I’m in favor of a limitation of some sort. The rest is up for discussion. 
 

10 years per term? That’s off the top of my head. Then the President could renominate the Justice or nominate somebody else. If we did that we wouldn’t need a maximum number of terms- so long as a Justice was successfully renominated he could go on indefinitely until he died. Again I’m just spouting ideas here, haven’t really considered it. 

Yeah, I’m not opposed to exploring it. I would like to have every option explored first, to rid the system of why we are talking term limits anyway.  I’m not a fan of the stories, Thomas for example, of justices committing acts that can bring impartiality in question. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

6 minutes ago, squistion said:

Not true, she worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly, LLP, from 1989-1991.

But not as a lawyer. Law firms have cleaning women too. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

50 minutes ago, squistion said:

Not true, she worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly, LLP, from 1989-1991.

She never actually stood in front of a judge, in a court room.  At all.  Ever.  She did book work for Williams & Connolly.  She was soooo gooood at that, that she left the law field to teach.  You know, those who can... do, those who can't.... teach.

[Cdub100 3,838]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-presidential-immunity-term-limits/74583088007/

Term limits and a code of ethics. Also a Constitutional amendment limiting Presidential immunity though that’s not really a Supreme Court reform. 

None of this is new. The term limit idea was actually pushed by many conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation, right after gay marriage was made legal. It will be amusing to watch them oppose it now. 

Personally I think the term limits is a good idea. I have always been opposed to term limits for public office holders because elections solve that. But this is not that and lifetime appointments have always seemed foolish to me. 

I’m less sure about the code of conduct because I’m not sure how it would ever be enforced and any investigation would immediately become a political tool. In the worst scenario impeachment already takes care of that, at least theoretically.

Thoughts? 

Term limits - Sounds good Court justices get 20-25 years. But first, we need term limits on Congress

 code of ethics. - This is scary. If you don't rule how the Democrats want you're in trouble. This is ABSOLUTE how it will be used.

Also a Constitutional amendment limiting Presidential immunity - Dumb, this again will allow democrats to persecute at will as they have been doing at the state level. Republicans are too spineless to do the same. I have something better we need to severely restrict the office of the president and remove 99% of the power of executive orders.

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

24 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Yeah, I’m not opposed to exploring it. I would like to have every option explored first, to rid the system of why we are talking term limits anyway.  I’m not a fan of the stories, Thomas for example, of justices committing acts that can bring impartiality in question. 

There are quite a few reasons, but the big one is that the GOP played the long game with judicial nominees and the Dems didn't even see it happening. As a result, all(depending on what you believe of Roberts)* of the judges the GOP nominated are or were members of the ultra conservative federalist society.  Nothing wrong, with conservatives nominating other conservatives, that's how the system is setup.  The issue is that the federalist society is conservative by conservative standards and advocate for some real fringe legal theories. We are talking about a very minority of lawyers(like less than 5% of all lawyers are part of that group).  There ideas just are not supported by most lawyers or legal scholars yet they make up 6 of the 9 justices on the supreme court. 
 

54 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

They wouldnt bring it up whatsoever if they were getting rulings they like.

Im old enough to remember when the left used to whine about the REPUBLICANS being a threat to democracy 

Cyclone talks about not getting the rulings they like, but as an avid court watcher it's not that we don't like the rulings, it's that this court is OVER-Ruling previous rulings with frequent regularity...as if all the judges that came before them were wrong and these are these 6 just have a better grasp of the law than previous courts. That's what I meant by fringe legal theories, nobody before this group really even considered them.  Along those lines; they have created a completely made up test called the "major questons" doctrine(a term never used in a majority opinion prior to 2022), removed the statute of limitations from agency actions, and then made the judicial system the decider in ambiguous laws(Chevron overturned). Judges, not appointed experts(subject to being removed by the next administration), will get to decide how these laws are interpreted, ie, the final say on environmental issues will be made by judges, not the EPA.   Let's also not forget that the court isn't supposed to give advisory opinions(only rule on things that have actually happened), but have been more and more recently. And I'm not even going to get into the fact of how many cases of misstating actual facts of cases and history they have made in their decisions. 

Quote

* In January 2019, The Washington Post wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the current nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, at least five are current or former members of the organization—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.[1][11] Chief Justice John Roberts previously served as a member of the steering committee of the Washington, D.C., chapter, but denies ever being a member.[12] Politico wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right.

The court isn't supposed to be politicized, that was the original intent with the lifetime appointments, but it has completely become politicized now and IMO, have become an arm of the GOP. And when you have a court that consists of such a minority of the legal spectrum you don't have a court that truly represents the country. 
 

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

She never actually stood in front of a judge, in a court room.  At all.  Ever.  She did book work for Williams & Connolly.  She was soooo gooood at that, that she left the law field to teach.  You know, those who can... do, those who can't.... teach.

I assume you feel the same way about Amy Comey Barrett. Mother Jones

Quote

 

Barrett has spent virtually all of her professional life in academia. Until President Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, she had never been a judge, never worked in the government as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, solicitor general, or attorney general, or served as counsel to any legislative body—the usual professional channels that Supreme Court nominees tend to hail from. A graduate of Notre Dame law school, Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever—a hole in her resume so glaring that during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were dismayed that she couldn’t recall more than three cases she’d worked on during her brief two years in private practice. Nominees are asked to provide details on 10.

Barrett has never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court, nor has she ever performed any notable pro bono work, even during law school. The ABA’s code of professional responsibility says lawyers should aspire to provide 50 hours a year of free legal services, with an emphasis on serving the poor in recognition of the fact that “only lawyers have the special skills and knowledge needed to secure access to justice for low-income people.” Chief Justice John Roberts famously met some of these requirements by representing a mass murderer on Florida’s death row.