Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

Are you that pathetic that you resort to this to get attention? Well here it is. It is sad bro. You would think after years and years on this board you would less obvious and more intelligent in the way you troll. But this is sad.

 

Once again you're not addressing the actual merits of the proposal. I don't disagree with anything you've said about why it's being proposed now.

Do you agree that the nomination process has become yet another partisan disaster? There are many culprits for that, and Joe Biden certainly is one, but staggered term limits would take that partisanship out of it and remove the zero sum battles over confirmations.

 

the Constitution says that all men are created equal, yet slavery continued to be practiced and women coudn't vote

while all Federal judges are subject a code of ethics, there is none for the supreme court justices

hold the sc justices to the same ethic standards for all Federal judges

 

The Constitution says involuntary servitude is abolished and that women can vote. There is a process to change it. That process isn't that the President says so.

 

actually that's the Declaration of Independence

View attachment 21340

 

Partisans are never wrong. Anyone who disagrees with them are the extremist. Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh are about as moderate as they come. Just because you're so far left doesn't make them right wing extremist. The left and the right wants everyone in the entire world to adhere to their beliefs.

 

the two documents are connected in spirit and are both considered founding documents of the country

 

"all men are created equal" is a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence

 

ur blowing smoke

why was there a need for

• the Emancipation Declaration ?
• the 22nd amendment to the Constitution?

​

 

Again do better. Your statement was incorrect and you tried to be slimy and say well “ these three judges are moderate”! BS to cover up the fact the court produced more conservative decisions this last term than at any time since 1931. Again do better. You can’t be this dumb and transparent can you.

 

I believe very differently.

It's not possible before the election because of politics, and Republicans are quite sure they will win. After the election, a Biden win would change the calculus, and as I said before, I do believe there are potential negotiations that work for both sides (after all, reforming the Court isn't new, and both sides have agreed that term limits are a good idea). Plus, Biden has done well and gotten bipartisan legislation to his desk that many people thought was dead.

 

Again, you are so far left that any decision, including moderate decisions, appear to be right winged. Its like the right wing morons who want to institute a nation wide abortion ban. You're both authoritarians who leave no room for other peoples views.

 

I believe there's a significant difference between being elected repeatedly and effectively serving a lifetime, versus never being elected and still serving a lifetime.

That said, term limits for the Senate and House is not a bad idea.

 

What views? What I stated is the truth. Unless you can offer any evidence that what I said is wrong. That’s such a weak response. I like how you try and change the goal posts. It is pathetic. People see through your weak ****. Do better man.

 

All it takes is ending the filibuster so slim house and senate majority would do if Biden pulls a Hail Mary and wins reelection. How does that good behavior clause stand up to the alleged bribery and corruption of Alito and Thomas your favorite SC justice?

You sure know how to pick 'em, hope you don't gamble.

 

Well better late than never.

The S Ct with lifetime appointments ( when average lifespan was 56, they never dreamed of S Ct judges serving for 40 years!) and after the power grab in Marbury the S Ct. is one of the worst defects in our ancient Constitution. With a couple of noted exceptions the only minority it has protected is the very wealthy).

Some others Constitutional defects are: 38 Senators for 19 states with a combined population of California; the Electoral College and not direct voting for President; and the worst of all-- making the Constitution virtually non-amendable.

 

FDR's SCOTUS reform bill (packing scheme) was not very popular with either party nor the public. However, the political pressure seems to have had an impact on the Court's decisions, so I wouldn't say it failed to accomplish what he wanted.

With that said, SCOTUS term limits are popular, with a majority of Republicans, as well as independents and Democrats, in support. (without politic and partisanship, this would likely pass)

 

There are "standard" moderates on this court, but as a whole, it doesn't matter. The Court is unethical, extreme, and dangerously powerful.

Thomas and Alito are unethical. No one else on the Court is unethical (at least to public knowledge).

Barrett is pretty much a typical standard "moderate" member of the Court. She is playing Roberts' old role—trying to keep the Court from being too partisan and viewed negatively by the public. Roberts used to do that, and either he has lost touch with people's views of the Court, or he doesn't care anymore. The presidential immunity decision is as extreme as it gets. The Court as a whole, just based on that one case, is an extreme court. Add on overturning two very impactful precedents within a short 2 years, and many see this Court not only as an extreme court, but also as a quite activist and very powerful one.

Side note - At the start of this government, the Court was viewed as the weakest of all 3 branches, with Congress having power to control what it looks like. Today, many see it as the strongest branch with its ability to have the final say on everything it wants to touch. We basically have 9 unelected officials, assigned to their seats for life, being the most powerful agents over everyone's lives. Our checks and balances have gotten out of whack - the check is extremely weak with Congress being very ineffective at checking the other two branches due to extreme partisanship, with an executive that has grown more powerful with absolute immunity for official acts by the POTUS, and with the Court having the final say on the POTUS's actions and everything else.

 

it was all going so well before it tipped the other way 5-4

 

The country was intentionally setup as a representative democracy, not mob rule. what is the point of having any government except for one leader if its simply majority rules on everything.

And we certainly don't want 50.01% of the population make amendments to the constitution. Its not impossible to amend the constitution. It only needs a super majority.