Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

Bless

 

long overdue

 

So can the court just turn around and say the changes are unconstitutional or what?

 

The Court ruling on reforms of itself: level 10 conflict of interest

 

Thats literally how the court got it's power. Marburby v madison

 

Won't be necessary. How would he push his agenda through the House? Through the inevitable Republican filibuster in the Senate?

 

through his high amount of political capitol and via poll numbers.

 

Have them all murdered via the newly invented Doctrine of Presidential Immunity

 

Their proposal suggested establishing staggered 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice being appointed every two years. This plan aimed to reduce the politicization of the Court and ensure a more regular and predictable appointment process. The idea has gained traction and been supported by various legal experts and policymakers in the years since.

Some folks and think tanks that have in the past voiced support for term limit reform include Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, the Federalist Society, and many conservative and progressive legal scholars.

2006: Reforming the Court - Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
by Roger C. Cramton, Paul D. Carrington

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781594602139/Reforming-the-Court

The Supreme Court today exercises power over the lives of citizens that, in important respects, exceeds that of other branches of the federal government. Life-tenured justices wield this enormous power for two or three decades and the only process that provides some accountability to the people occurs as new appointments regenerate the Court. Because justices now serve so long, that process occurs only rarely and irregularly and may be affected by a justice's desire to have a successor appointed by a like-minded president. Some presidents have great influence on the Court's future decisions by the happenstance that they receive three or more appointments; other presidents have little or no influence because no vacancies arise during their terms. This collection of essays by eminent legal scholars provides a comprehensive, balanced, and compelling examination of a largely neglected, but very important, subject. What are the harmful consequences of the lengthening tenure of Supreme Court justices? Do those consequences suggest that reform is necessary or desirable? Can the problem be remedied by congressional enactments or is a constitutional amendment required?

 

There are a lot of old justices (3 of the 4 oldest are conservatives). If Biden is re-elected, Republicans might be interested in limiting him to just two Supreme Court justice appointments instead of more. Things can be negotiated, and reform could happen. Biden has been pretty good at getting legislation to his desk that everyone thought was nearly impossible.

 

We have the most moderate supreme court in decades and a certain party wants to upend it.

That said, I largely support this model

 

lol if Biden is re-elected.

 

Ah yes, the Article II, Section 69 power to merc members of Congress.

That may have been true prior to the debate and assassination attempt. I don't think many Republicans are passing Supreme Court reforms now. I would think it is more likely Sotomayor retires in hopes of getting a Biden nominee confirmed while he is still in office (though I don't think that is likely either). The oldest on the court now is Thomas, at 76. That's pretty old to still be working, but the likes of Ginsburg and Rhenquist stayed until death at 80 or older. The next oldest is Alito, and he is 74, can likely easily serve at least 5 more years. Everyone else is 70 or younger. The last five justices to retire were O'Conner (75, left so Bush could nominate her replacement), Souter (69), Kennedy (81), Stevens (90), and Marshall (83). A lot of justices have sat while being a lot older than anyone currently on the court.

 

you cant possibly believe that to be true.

i do think there needs to be some ethics accountability on the SC (and in congress and the white house too). i agree with sleepy joes proposals here, but i cant help but notice the glaring omission of barring members of congress from insider trading or working as lobbyists when they leave office. or term limits for members of congress.

i dont agree with the staggered terms idea. i think the way its done now is fine, with the president making the pick when a justices term is up. i think somewhere b/t a 16 and 20 year term would be reasonable.

im also totally against expanding the court.

also, we need something in place to prevent what mcconnell did to garland in 2016...he denied obama his rightful pick and then when trump was in the same situation (actually with less time left in his term than obama at the time) he rushed his pick through. total turtle hypocrisy.

 

Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barret are all very moderate and lean constitutional absolutist. We obviously know the other 6 are very partisan. If you find yourself disagreeing with Roberts, Kavanaugh or Barret, its best to reconsider ones position. There is little need to recheck your position with the other 6.

It does seem Thomas takes some undo liberties. If we dig deeply, will we find similar cases? Pelosi is over there trading like the casino is going to close in 30 mins and those who critique Thomas say little about Pelosi and other members of congress. This has gone on far too long.

 

related:

"As Mr. Biden’s re-election prospects grow more dire, his policy lurches to the left are becoming ever more radical."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...velopment-2117e9d5?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s

Biden Proposes Nationwide Rent Control
He wants to cap rent increases at 5% a year, if you can believe it.
By The Editorial Board
July 16, 2024 at 5:35 pm ET

We hoped President Biden had merely misspoken during last week’s NATO press conference when he mentioned capping rents. Alas, no. On Tuesday he unveiled a nationwide rent-control plan, another classic White House policy contradiction: Subsidize housing, then discourage its development.

Higher mortgage rates and home prices are pushing Americans out of the home-buying market. This is contributing to higher demand for rental housing. Rents on average nationwide have risen 30% over the last four years and even more in Sun Belt states with fast-growing populations. Evictions are also increasing in many markets.

Enter Mr. Biden, who on Tuesday pitched conditioning “valuable federal tax breaks” on landlords capping rent increases at 5% annually. The White House says its plan would apply to “corporate” landlords with more than 50 units, covering more than 20 million units or roughly half the country’s rental stock.

What are such lucrative tax breaks? The press release refers to “faster depreciation write-offs.” Under the current tax code, residential rental property owners can depreciate a building’s value over 27.5 years, rather than 39 as for other types of commercial real estate. A shorter depreciation schedule increases the incentive to invest in rental housing.

Conditioning this tax benefit on landlords limiting rents to 5% would do the opposite. It would reduce and could even eliminate the return on rental housing investments, especially since inflation has driven up insurance, construction and maintenance costs. Investors will have to pay higher taxes or accept a lower return. The Administration wants to increase subsidies for affordable housing even as it promotes policies to make such projects less financially attractive.

The White House says its rent-control ultimatum won’t discourage new housing investment because it would apply only to existing units. But developers will rightly anticipate that the policy will eventually be extended to newer units, which will factor into their investment calculus. Reducing the return on completed projects also reduces the capital available to invest in new ones.

This is also what the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) did in March when it capped annual rent increases at 10% for rental units that benefit from the low-income housing tax credit. The ceiling was previously set at twice the annual increase in the median household income, which would have been 14.8% this year.

Tax depreciation schedules are set by statute, so Congress would have to enact Mr. Biden’s new national rent-control plan. But the expiration of the Trump tax cuts at the end of 2025 will provide him with negotiating leverage if he is re-elected with Republican control of one or both chambers of Congress. There is also bipartisan support in Congress for increasing housing tax subsidies.

It’s hard to think of a worse idea than imposing rent control nationwide through the tax code. It would reduce investment in new supply and drive up rents in units not subject to government caps. Look at New York City where nearly half of units are “rent stabilized,” and the average one-bedroom apartment costs $4,300 a month.

As Mr. Biden’s re-election prospects grow more dire, his policy lurches to the left are becoming ever more radical.

Appeared in the July 17, 2024, print edition as 'Biden Proposes Nationwide Rent Control'.


​

 

Royal Doctrine of Presidential Immunity

 

The staggered 18-year terms are a wonderful proposal. Not sure how anyone who complains about Biden and Trump's ages can argue against undoing lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.

 

Is this saying the proposal is to offer an additional tax break for companies (holding 50 or more units) who willingly chose to cap the rent raises at 5%?