Reform of the Supreme Court

[kallend 1,795]

 Joe Biden will call for major changes to the court today, endorsing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

About time!

“What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms,” Biden wrote in an op-ed  “We now stand in a breach.”

 

[Phil1111 1,047]

Trump and republicans "Not gonna happen. We worked hard for the fix and we are not giving it up".

Democrats will have to promise a moderate and centralist agenda. To win the presidency, the house and the senate. Then they can go to work on common sense and integrity in the courts.

[JoeWeber 2,520]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

 Joe Biden will call for major changes to the court today, endorsing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

About time!

“What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms,” Biden wrote in an op-ed  “We now stand in a breach.”

 

I hope to hell he doesn't do a damn thing yet, especially given that it'll be ineffective nonsense that will serve only to bolster the weaponization claims. Wait until November 6 after Harris wins or loses and then go after the Court.

[JoeWeber 2,520]

Well, here it is and it's as useful as lighting farts in protest, and just in time seeing as we now have less than 100 days to screw this up.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,236]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Well, here it is and it's as useful as lighting farts in protest, and just in time seeing as we now have less than 100 days to screw this up.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/

 

Hi Joe,

Maybe Biden really is losing it.

Your previous post was right-on.  This is not the time to stir the waters.

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 1,795]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Well, here it is and it's as useful as lighting farts in protest, and just in time seeing as we now have less than 100 days to screw this up.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/

 

OH, I don't know about that.  It might be a very smart election gambit. 

36 percent of American adults indicated that they approve of the way the Court is handling its job, while 51 percent of people disapprove .

Even 34% of Republicans disapprove of the current SCOTUS and its handling of cases. 

Could be a good wedge issue.

[SkyDekker 1,270]

24 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Maybe Biden really is losing it.

Your previous post was right-on.  This is not the time to stir the waters.

Jerry Baumchen

He isn't.

 

He is asking for legislation that would:

• Not make president immune from criminal prosecution
• Term limits on SCOTUS justices
• A binding code of conduct

I think this is smart politics. Let the Republicans state they are against these things. I think most Americans would be on board with these three items.

Edited July 29 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,520]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

OH, I don't know about that.  It might be a very smart election gambit. 

36 percent of American adults indicated that they approve of the way the Court is handling its job, while 51 percent of people disapprove .

Even 34% of Republicans disapprove of the current SCOTUS and its handling of cases. 

Could be a good wedge issue.

I doubt it. Harris is running now not Biden so his legacy must now be on hold. Not a single tilt at a windmill should happen until she's the confirmed nominee and then only with permission from her campaign. In electoral terms, it truly isn't an even money bet. I say wait.

[nigel99 273]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Maybe Biden really is losing it.

Your previous post was right-on.  This is not the time to stir the waters.

Jerry Baumchen

A while ago someone gave the reason that a second term president can be more effective is that they don’t need to worry about re election and the political consequences.

I think it’s a dangerous strategy, but it might well work. If Biden ‘goes hard’, he can get some stuff done. Harris can focus on the campaign and ‘ignore it’ so as not to tie herself directly to it. It’s a unique opportunity to effectively have 2 very powerful figures working as a team.

As John said most people probably support it and so it could really expose MAGA as the Donald cult.

[JerryBaumchen 1,236]

5 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

A while ago someone gave the reason that a second term president can be more effective is that they don’t need to worry about re election and the political consequences.

I think it’s a dangerous strategy, but it might well work. If Biden ‘goes hard’, he can get some stuff done. Harris can focus on the campaign and ‘ignore it’ so as not to tie herself directly to it. It’s a unique opportunity to effectively have 2 very powerful figures working as a team.

As John said most people probably support it and so it could really expose MAGA as the Donald cult.

Hi Nigel,

There is a reason why, at this point in time, Biden is known as a 'Lame Duck.'  This 'Lame Duck thingy' has a long history in this country.

Also, with the GOP controlling the House of Reps, something like this will never pass.

As far as 'exposing' the BS, those MAGA folks ain't gonna listen.  They know who they want for Pres.

But, thanks for your thoughts.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,316]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

He isn't.

 

He is asking for legislation that would:

• Not make president immune from criminal prosecution
• Term limits on SCOTUS justices
• A binding code of conduct

I think this is smart politics. Let the Republicans state they are against these things. I think most Americans would be on board with these three items.

It's not that easy - we all know the Republicans will simply refuse to engage on the details. They'll just shout about sore loser Democrats trying to overturn the Constitutional order so they can flip the court and end democracy. Then whenever someone asks the specifically about those three items they'll just ignore the question and shout the same things all over again.

Maybe the duplicity will be obvious enough for most people to see through it, maybe it won't.

Edited July 29 by jakee

[ryoder 1,514]

41 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

There is a reason why, at this point in time, Biden is known as a 'Lame Duck.'  This 'Lame Duck thingy' has a long history in this country.

Also, with the GOP controlling the House of Reps, something like this will never pass.

But Biden is the first Lame Duck with full criminal immunity for "official acts". He should take full advantage of it and make the changes needed.

Then when the GOP whines about it, he can just shrug and say: "Be careful what you wish for".

[obelixtim 125]

11 hours ago, ryoder said:

But Biden is the first Lame Duck with full criminal immunity for "official acts". He should take full advantage of it and make the changes needed.

Then when the GOP whines about it, he can just shrug and say: "Be careful what you wish for".

Agreed. He needs to use his unlimited power to order the arrest and incarceration of Trump, his lickspittles and those SC judges who have violated their oaths to the constitution. They are a clear and present danger to the country. Enemies, both DOMESTIC and foreign, I think the oath of allegiance clearly states.  

[Phil1111 1,047]

3 hours ago, obelixtim said:

Agreed. He needs to use his unlimited power to order the arrest and incarceration of Trump, his lickspittles and those SC judges who have violated their oaths to the constitution. They are a clear and present danger to the country. Enemies, both DOMESTIC and foreign, I think the oath of allegiance clearly states.  

If he did that who would suffer the most in the confines of prison, Trump or Clarence Thomas?

[lippy 852]

22 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

If he did that who would suffer the most in the confines of prison, Trump or Clarence Thomas?

Trump would suffer more....Thomas is accustomed to small enclosed spaces:

[SkyDekker 1,270]

19 hours ago, jakee said:

It's not that easy - we all know the Republicans will simply refuse to engage on the details. They'll just shout about sore loser Democrats trying to overturn the Constitutional order so they can flip the court and end democracy. Then whenever someone asks the specifically about those three items they'll just ignore the question and shout the same things all over again.

Maybe the duplicity will be obvious enough for most people to see through it, maybe it won't.

Sure, but the battle for votes isn't on the extremes, it is at the moderate level in the middle. Which moderate is really is going to object to:

• Term limits
• code of conduct
• not making the president above the law

So the more Republicans object or obfuscate, teh more moderates would be drawn to Democrats on this issue. At least during this little news cycle.

[tkhayes 241]

On 7/29/2024 at 6:20 AM, kallend said:

 Joe Biden will call for major changes to the court today, endorsing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

About time!

“What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms,” Biden wrote in an op-ed  “We now stand in a breach.”

 

another example of failed representation.  Supreme Court disapproval ratings are up across the country, the vast majority of americans would like to see some changes certainly on ethics, and it will NEVER happen, because political parties make the decisions and use it as a power tool, not a constitutional or democratic tool or a justice tool. 

This is not the 'representative government' that we are supposed to have.  just like abortion and gun safety.... it will never happen.

 

[jakee 1,316]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, but the battle for votes isn't on the extremes, it is at the moderate level in the middle. Which moderate is really is going to object to:

• Term limits
• code of conduct
• not making the president above the law

So the more Republicans object or obfuscate, teh more moderates would be drawn to Democrats on this issue. At least during this little news cycle.

Sure it's moderates. The same moderates who were suckered by the Fox news spin cycle in 2016. And they'll phrase it as what moderate would vote for trashing the constitution of the founding fathers and removing the check and balance of a truly independent Supreme Court? What moderate would want to allow every incoming Democrat President to appoint enough new partisan Justices to ram through every bit of anti-freedom, Critical Race Theory, commie loving, high tax legislation they want? We told you they were trying to steal the government through the plots of the Deep State and now they're doing it out in the open with the Supreme Court too!

Yes, it's obviously total bullshit, but that's the discussion a large part of the media will try to have. Just have to hope they won't be able to do it as well as they have done before.