Biden’s plan for Supreme Court reform

[squistion 2,202]

1 minute 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.

So what? You aren't qualified to be a judge if you have never stood in front of one in a court room?

She was appointed Solicitor General by Obama. And as Solicitor General, Kagan's job was to act as the lawyer for the United States and defend legislation and executive actions in appeals before the Supreme Court (I think that counts as a court room).

And when she was nominated to SCOTUS by Obama in 2010, the deans of over one-third of the country's law schools, 69 people in total, endorsed the nomination in an open letter. It lauded what it called her coalition-building skills and "understanding of both doctrine and policy" as well as her written record of legal analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

 

[seafoam1 3,025]

Just now, squistion said:

So what? You aren't qualified to be a judge if you have never stood in front of one in a court room?

 

She's not qualified. 

[Cdub100 3,908]

7 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

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.

I'd like to point out this is ANOTHER attack from Democrats on our institutions because people are rejecting their gay tranny immigrant power grab. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Term limits and code of ethics are good and necessary moves.

Term limits shouldn’t really help either “side” but I guess a fair approach would be to grandfather in current SC Justices.

Code of ethics — there’s always an assh0le that makes these rules necessary. We made it a couple hundred years but then Clarence Thomas and, to a lesser extent, Samuel Alito, had to push the boundaries with all manner of grift and conflict. Blame that dipsh1t if you don’t like it.

Constitutional amendment limiting immunity - sounds good but Biden knows it’ll never happen. We can’t agree on sh1t these days but you’re gonna get a supermajority and then ratification by however many states? Yeah right

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

I’d like to know George Clooney’s thoughts on the matter before weighing in. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’d like to know George Clooney’s thoughts on the matter before weighing in. 

I don't make a move without deniro's stamp of approval. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

26 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

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.

Thank you for offering some honest opinions. I actually agree with you on a lot of this. You can be a thoughtful guy when you’re not going off about how terrible Jews are. Really too bad that you feel that way because you’re probably a pretty decent dude in other aspects of your life. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

I don't make a move without deniro's stamp of approval. 

Rosie and Meathead too. Maybe old and fat Luke Skywalker. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

20 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

I'd like to point out this is ANOTHER attack from Democrats on our institutions because people are rejecting their gay tranny immigrant power grab. 

This, however, is ridiculous. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

This, however, is ridiculous. 

Go look in the mirror if you want to see "ridiculous".

[cyclone24 1,913]

36 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

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. 
 

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. 

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. 
 

While I disagree on the actual current fervor for doing this which is clearly political….I appreciate the well thought out response. 
 

I just don’t agree that they would be proposing it if most of the judges leaned and ruled to the left. And again, you guys started politicizing the court systems not the Republicans.

[weepaws 3,193]

48 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Go look in the mirror if you want to see "ridiculous".

You saw yourself. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

2 minutes ago, weepaws said:

You saw yourself. 

Oh boy. I saw God. I am God!! 

[weepaws 3,193]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

Oh boy. I saw God. I am God!! 

Haven’t, And your not.  Your just sea-biscuit 

[seafoam1 3,025]

Just now, weepaws said:

Haven’t, And your not.  Your just sea-biscuit 

I am the Lord your God. 

[weepaws 3,193]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I am the Lord your God. 

No, your just sea-biscuit 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

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

 

Yeah, I said as much at the time.  I called out liberals who were saying she wasn't qualified by asking why they didn't have a problem with Kagan.  It's the same thing.  Either you're against Barrett and Kagan or you're for both.  If Obama can do it, so can Trump, right?  Or is it (D)ifferent?

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

So what? You aren't qualified to be a judge if you have never stood in front of one in a court room?

She was appointed Solicitor General by Obama. And as Solicitor General, Kagan's job was to act as the lawyer for the United States and defend legislation and executive actions in appeals before the Supreme Court (I think that counts as a court room).

And when she was nominated to SCOTUS by Obama in 2010, the deans of over one-third of the country's law schools, 69 people in total, endorsed the nomination in an open letter. It lauded what it called her coalition-building skills and "understanding of both doctrine and policy" as well as her written record of legal analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

 

She was never actually in a courtroom.  I'd think that in order to be a judge, you'd have to at least SEEN one.  No?  As @Mike Honcho pointed, it's no different than Barrett, right?  You're fine with her being on the Supreme Court, or is that (D)ifferent.  Trump took a page out of the Obama book.  That's all good, right?

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yeah, I said as much at the time.  I called out liberals who were saying she wasn't qualified by asking why they didn't have a problem with Kagan.  It's the same thing.  Either you're against Barrett and Kagan or you're for both.  If Obama can do it, so can Trump, right?  Or is it (D)ifferent?

See I’m opposite from you (no surprise). I had no problem with Barrett or Kagan in terms of qualifications. 
I did have a problem with Barrett in terms of timing, because when Obama nominated Garland, McConnell refused to hold hearings arguing that we needed to wait until the election. But with Barrett he rushed it through. I found that to be disingenuous. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

6 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

She was never actually in a courtroom.  I'd think that in order to be a judge, you'd have to at least SEEN one.  No?  As @Mike Honcho pointed, it's no different than Barrett, right?  You're fine with her being on the Supreme Court, or is that (D)ifferent.  Trump took a page out of the Obama book.  That's all good, right?

With the Court being composed of nine Justices and always, to my knowledge, sitting en banc, I believe there will always be plenty of experience in trial issues.  I am not necessarily  opposed to a minority of Justices lacking trial experience if they are incredibly well educated and practiced in Constitutional law issues and perhaps American history.  I am also aware that each Justice has law clerks to help them research and consider issues.  It is not as if they are on an island making real tinme decisions without consultation and collaberation.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

See I’m opposite from you (no surprise). I had no problem with Barrett or Kagan in terms of qualifications. 
I did have a problem with Barrett in terms of timing, because when Obama nominated Garland, McConnell refused to hold hearings arguing that we needed to wait until the election. But with Barrett he rushed it through. I found that to be disingenuous. 

I want people who are NOT activists in positions of power.  Neither qualify.  They're both activists who push an extremist agenda.  They were both place in that position because they were young and expected to serve 20 years or more to push that agenda.  That is DEI.  That's not a good thing.  I'm not surprised you're ok with that because you're ok with that even in the White House.

[seafoam1 3,025]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I want people who are NOT activists in positions of power.  Neither qualify.  They're both activists who push an extremist agenda.  They were both place in that position because they were young and expected to serve 20 years or more to push that agenda.  That is DEI.  That's not a good thing.  I'm not surprised you're ok with that because you're ok with that even in the White House.

Wasted words on activist timmy. 

[squistion 2,202]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

She was never actually in a courtroom.  I'd think that in order to be a judge, you'd have to at least SEEN one.  No?  As @Mike Honcho pointed, it's no different than Barrett, right?  You're fine with her being on the Supreme Court, or is that (D)ifferent.  Trump took a page out of the Obama book.  That's all good, right?

SCOTUS has a courtroom on the second floor of its building where oral arguments are held, so yes, she had been in an actual courtroom when she was Solicitor General. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

SCOTUS has a courtroom on the second floor of its building where oral arguments are held, so yes, she had been in an actual courtroom when she was Solicitor General. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

I was a very successful trial attorney.  I was also universally successful in my few forays into the appellate courts.  i never argued in front of the State or the U..S. Supremes.  I am familiar with Constitutional law and have a Constitutional philosophy as well as a judicial one.  I would be a very poor Supreme Court Justice.  The scholarship required for an effective Justice is a unique trait and frankly beyond me.  Being an effective Justice is truly a unique skill set, so unique that few if any of the current Justices really possess the essential skill set.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

23 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

With the Court being composed of nine Justices and always, to my knowledge, sitting en banc I believe their will always be plenty of experience in trial issues.  I am not nercessarily  opposed to a minority of Justoivers lacking yrial experience if they are incredibly well educated and practiced in Constitutional law issues and perrhaps American history.  I am also aware that each Justice has law clerks to help them research and consider issues.  It is not as if they are on an island making real tinme decisions without consultation and collaberation.

Sure, I get that.  If either were doing Constitutional law, fine, but neither were.  Kagan, at best, was a political activist with a law degree.  Barrett was at least a judge in the 7th circuit court of appeals before even being on the Supreme Court, but I'm not really sure she should've gotten that job either.  At least she did something at a judge level, but I don't see the two all that much different.  They were picked solely to to cater to the extremes of their party... I don't like that.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

20 minutes ago, squistion said:

SCOTUS has a courtroom on the second floor of its building where oral arguments are held, so yes, she had been in an actual courtroom when she was Solicitor General. 

LOL, as a receptionist.

You're response tells me you think that Barrett was more qualified than Kagan, is that correct?

[MLCKAA 574]

4 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? 

Abstractly, I’m fine with SC term limits and a code of ethics.  The problem I’d anticipate is ever being able to achieve something non-partisan.  Either “side” with their foot on the pedal will try everything they can to craft reforms that they believe will benefit their party.

As for elections being a fine substitute for term limits, Feinstein, Grassley, Napolitano, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clyburn, McConnell and the rest of the geriatrics thank you for your support.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

If they weren’t qualified, they shouldn’t have been confirmed.

But they were confirmed so STFU.

This bullsh1t of trying to go back 20-30 years and litigate who was and was not a “DEI hire” for their first focking job is stupid. Don’t care if it’s kagan or barret or who the fock ever.

[seafoam1 3,025]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

If they weren’t qualified, they shouldn’t have been confirmed.

But they were confirmed so STFU.

Are you this dumb? What's a woman?

[seafoam1 3,025]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

If they weren’t qualified, they shouldn’t have been confirmed.

But they were confirmed so STFU.

This bullsh1t of trying to go back 20-30 years and litigate who was and was not a “DEI hire” for their first focking job is stupid. Don’t care if it’s kagan or barret or who the fock ever.

You only have to go back 4 years to the DEI hire of kameltoe. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

26 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I was a very successful trial attorney.  I was also universally successful in my few forays into the appellate courts.  i never argued in front of the State or the U..S. Supremes.  I am familiar with Constitutional law and have a Constitutional philosophy as well as a judicial one.  I would be a very poor Supreme Court Justice.  The scholarship required for an effective Justice is a unique trait and frankly beyond me.  Being an effective Justice is truly a unique skill set, so unique that few if any of the current Justices really possess the essential skill set.

I could do it. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I could do it. 

Yeah, they need a leftist hillbilly to add to the court. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Hunter Bidens father is on TV right now yelling that no one is above the law.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

If they weren’t qualified, they shouldn’t have been confirmed.

But they were confirmed so STFU.

This bullsh1t of trying to go back 20-30 years and litigate who was and was not a “DEI hire” for their first focking job is stupid. Don’t care if it’s kagan or barret or who the fock ever.

Just like the NFL being a copycat league, so is Congress.  Obama puts in a young activist onto the Supreme Court, so Trump does it too.  Of course, Biden has to make sure he one-up's Trump and puts a person on the SC who can't define what a woman is.  If you think that what @Mike Honcho said where the extremist view point of SCOTUS is a problem, then you should think that Kagan, Brown, and Barrett are all a problem.  Otherwise, it's just another "it's (D)ifferent" argument.

 

This is something you SHOULD care about.  It's the current state of the government right now.  Who can bring in the most extreme people into government.  It's what causes division.  Right now, while the narrative is that it's Republican's causing the division, if you use your eyes and ears, it's clearly the Democrats.  Of course though, you don't see it, because "it's (D)ifferent.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

6 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

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 presidncy 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.

Who gets to define "good behavior"?  We saw the left use Trump's "Go protest the election peacefully" turned into an "OMG! He said go riot and do an insurrection" followed by a trial and then they also went after him at the State level too.

The left will merely defined "good behavior" = "do what we want" and if you don't do what they want they'll say you breached the ethics.  You can't trust the left at all as they move further and further left every election.  Kamala herself is a Marxist/Communist.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

3 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

I don't make a move without deniro's stamp of approval. 

What's Joy Behar have to say on this?  I won't do anything until she tells me what to do.

[Reality 3,121]

Waste of hot air, none of this is happening on Biden's watch.

[seafoam1 3,025]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

What's Joy Behar have to say on this?  I won't do anything until she tells me what to do.

 I asked her out to prom but she's already hooking up with Timmy.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Who gets to define "good behavior"?  We saw the left use Trump's "Go protest the election peacefully" turned into an "OMG! He said go riot and do an insurrection" followed by a trial and then they also went after him at the State level too.

The left will merely defined "good behavior" = "do what we want" and if you don't do what they want they'll say you breached the ethics.  You can't trust the left at all as they move further and further left every election.  Kamala herself is a Marxist/Communist.

I agree defining good behavior would likely start and maybe end as an exercise in partisanship.  In the end, however, I have some faith that the Code of Ethics for the Supremes would likely mirror pretty closely those Codes already widely in place for State and Federal Judges.  I believe it would end up being based on the Model Codes.  Hopefully it would be adhered to more stringently than some judges and D.A.'s do now with their current obligations