Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

What was Trump's?

 

Except again which has been highlighted multiple multiple times is that he says to “Find him just enough votes to win” and that is all that he wants Raffensperger to do.

The word salad and false beliefs that Trump throws out and which Raffensperger checks in real time don’t change that Trump did say that and the primary purpose of the call is to get Raffensperger to change the election results.

you’re correct that we shouldn’t ignore the rest of the transcripts but that doesn’t mean you can ignore that Trump does ask for funding just enough votes to win. He said it and also basically asked for the same thing more
Than once.

 

Just find me those votes-- ok, but don't ignore the rest of the transcript (as if it actually clear up his attempt)

BUT MUST totally ignore the full context.

- alternative slates of electors
- considered EO to seize voting machines
- replaced DOJ officials who refuse to support fraud claims of a stolen election
- disregards all cabinet and officials of the executive who told him election was secure and valid
- explored idea of martial law to rerun elections (but only in states he lost)
- pushed Republicans to decertify their State election results
- "hang" mike pence if he doens't do the right thing
- Jan 6

Look, he's innocent, he wasn't trying to throw out the result and fake a new result to overturn the election.

 

Yes the argument put forward by @StupidMoniker is correct that we shouldn’t ignore the whole text of the transcript. That does mean though we shouldn’t ignore that Trump did say to “find him enough votes”. It also means we shouldn’t ignore the rest of the actions that Trump and his supporters undertook in GA.

From wha to recall the indictment against Trump isn’t just based on one line in one call it on several other statements and actions taken by Trump and his supporters.

 

Context is absolutely right and important. Using only selective context and ignoring the massive larger context screams bad faith argument. That's what I'm seeing often around here with certain posters.

 

I'm not ignoring it, I am saying that if you read the transcript that is clearly not what he is asking. He is asking for all of the things he talks about to be checked, and that he believes after checking all of those things, the corrections would have him winning by hundreds of thousands of votes, when all that is required to change the results is 11,780. He actually never says to find him just enough votes to win, that is the made up spin of the call. The closes he comes is the portion that I bolded (somehow that is considered ignoring), where Trump says he himself wants to find 11,780 votes. This is both before and after he has said he has found many times that number. If you read the entire transcript of the call and your takeaway was that Trump was asking Raffensperger to illegally add 11,780 votes to Trump's total, I question your reading comprehension.

 

LOL, many people just can't believe the orange man lost, and the majority of people simply didn't choose that lying pig as their choice for President. Then again, QAnon beliefs seep through the mindset of many MAGA supporters as well. Even Trump and MAGA politicians quote Q. There is crazy throughout the crowd at his rallies.

 

LOL

Trump could shot a man on 5th ave and you'd still back the man.

 

This is why the SCOTUS is not a true court and a political organization. When the Justices are on "Team Trump" then it's a bogus court that needs to be disbanded.

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-wrote-note-intended-aileen-cannon-glenn-kirschner-1927980

 

As I already don't back him, I don't think him shooting someone on 5th Ave. would get me to do it, and by definition couldn't result in me "still" backing him. If people attacked him for shooting the person on 5th Ave., I would want to know what the context was. If the person was, for example, shooting at him, then I would defend him shooting back. When I see incorrect attacks, I enjoy rebutting them. When people attacked Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people at a BLM rally, I looked at the facts and defended him.

 

Except he does ask for raffensberger to find just enough votes to win and he does so more than once. You’re questioning others reading comprehension yet you’re asking us to downplay parts of the transcript.

And as stated the indictment isn’t just based on one call or one line in a call. There is also the matter of a false set of electors that Trump supporters planned to supplant the official electors with.

 

Also to add in other statements Trump has acknowledged he lost the election. Granted we can’t say for certain whether the moment of the call he did but Raffensperger and other counter his claims that there was massive election fraud in that very call. That is when Trump starts talking about only needing to find enough votes to win.

 

You might want to go back and try again. He never once asks Raffensperger to find just enough votes to win. At one point he says he (Trump) just wants to find enough votes to win, but then shortly thereafter says that he has already found many times that amount. All of his calls to action to Raffensperger are to take a look at the issues he is presenting and then report what is found, because if (as Trump believes) he does so, then Trump will win the election by many times the current difference.

If they reverse the results based on finding massive ineligible votes, they would need to have alternative electors. The same thing has happened before, and when the results were not reversed they just dismissed the alternate electors. So really, it is just based on one (out of context) line in one call. Given the jurisdiction, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to get a conviction.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ourt-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

Opinion Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power and restore the public’s faith in our judicial system.
By Joe Biden
July 29, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

The writer is president of the United States.

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is noimmunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

​

 

I missed this earlier but frankly it doesn’t seem worth debating as you’re continuing it just ignore that he did ask Raffensperberger to find himself just enough votes. You yourself highlighted that very line.

I agree there’s more context and we should read the whole transcript. That line is part of the whole transcript.

Also the alternate electors weren’t dismissed. Trump’s camp was trying to get Congress to accept them on Jan. 6. This was long after they had already been told, including in that call, that there was no significant evidence of voter fraud or legal basis to challenge the results.

You seem to be just ignoring those facts and selectively reading the transcript. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Basically, he's arguing for:

1- A Constitutional Amendment ("No One Is Above the Law Amendment"): This would explicitly state that former presidents can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, eliminating any immunity for such actions.

2- Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Instead of lifetime appointments, Biden proposes a system where: The president would appoint a justice every two years. Each justice would serve 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court. This aims to make court nominations more predictable and reduce the impact of any single presidency on the court's composition.

3- A Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: This would replace the current voluntary ethics code with enforceable rules requiring justices to: Disclose gifts, Refrain from public political activity, Recuse themselves from cases where they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest

None of this is new, and all of it is very sensible and what the public wants.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/2...de-of-conduct-against-supreme-court-justices/

13 hours ago
[Josh Blackman] What Would It Mean For Lower Federal Court Judges To Enforce A Code Of Conduct Against Supreme Court Justices?
Does Justice Kagan really want Chief Judge Kimberly Moore to give Justice Thomas the Pauline Newman treatment?
by Josh Blackman
7.28.2024 7:45 PM

When Justice Kagan speaks to the Ninth Circuit judicial conference, after cutting through all the pleasantries and bromides, her primary objective is to give the left a to-do list. She doesn't sob in her office. She punches through walls. This year, Kagan casually floated an idea that has taken shape: Justice John Roberts could appoint some panel of "judges lower down the food chain" to review allegations of misconduct.

As a threshold matter, she threw Justice Thomas under his RV, and raised Justice Alito up his flagpole. Not even a year after the Court adopted an ethics code–which was part of Kagan's earlier wish-list–Kagan is already saying that the rules are not enough. There have to be teeth!

I'll repeat a few points I've made more times than I can count. Ethics codes are not bright-line rules. They merely offer guidance to judges about how to proceed. All federal judges, even the Justices, can request informal advice from their colleagues, or judges on other courts. Though not binding, judges tend to do what others have done. Judicial ethics body have only very limited tools to enforce ethics codes. These institutions can issue private and public reprimands. In extreme cases, they can refer a judge for impeachment. At that point, it is up to Congress to act. But the ultimate death sentence is to prevent a judge from being a judge.

Take the Federal Circuit. The well-respected judges of that court have removed Judge Pauline Newman from hearing any cases until she submits to a health exam with the doctor of their choice. Newman filed a valiant legal challenge, but has lost in the District Court, and her hope now lies in the D.C. Circuit. Moreover, the Federal Circuit recently excommunicated her for another year. Newman is 97 years young. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and her colleagues are probably waiting for Judge Newman to die. This is a stealth impeachment, and the other federal judges have done nothing about it. They are too busy trying to punish litigants in Texas for filing cases where the venue statutes permit them to file. (There is action afoot in the rules committee–stay tuned.) Anyway, I digress.

These are the things that lower court judges can do to enforce ethics codes. Does Justice Kagan really want to empower the likes of Judge Moore and others to suspend Supreme Court Justices from hearing cases? Or allow some inferior panel to force a Justice to recuse from a particular case? Will there now be entire rounds of litigation before these panels immediately after a cert grant?

The Wall Street Journal editorial board raises some other questions:

Could her panel issue subpoenas to investigate allegations? How would it sanction Justices who enjoy life tenure? Wouldn't setting up such a system encourage frivolous complaints, filed for partisan PR purposes or to make the process into the punishment?​

Once this process exists, there will be thousands upon thousands of frivolous complaints. Look at the thousand "orchestrated" complaints filed against Judge Aileen Cannon–so many that Chief Judge Pryor ordered the clerk's office to stop accepting them! And this is only one district court judge. Imagine what will happen for Justices Thomas and Alito. There will be at least one judge somewhere who finds one of these complaints meritorious. Who will be the first Justice to get the Pauline Newman treatment? Did Kagan really think this suggestion through a policy matter?

I haven't even addressed the separation of powers problems: inferior judges sitting in judgment of apex officials. No way this flies.

At the end of the day, all of these calls for "judicial reform" are addressing a problem that barely exists, and mandate solutions that would cause substantial harm to the judiciary. Judge Jim Ho frames the issue well in his new National Review essay:

The double standards aren't an accident. They're intentional. They're a strategy to create a perverse incentive structure for judges: If you rule the way the critics dictate, you won't be criticized. You'll be fêted. But if you don't, you'll be ostracized.

That's why the double standards don't seem to trouble the critics. Because, to the critics, this isn't a debate — it's a war. The critics don't want neutrality. They want conformity. If you don't conform, they'll call you corrupt, unethical, racist, sexist, homophobic. They'll say you're just trolling, or auditioning. Whatever it takes for you to bend the knee. And even if you still won't conform, they'll attack you anyway, because others will get the message and comply.

Critics have repeatedly said that they want to pack the Court. But there's no need for them to pack the Court if they can just pressure the Court to do what they want.​

I don't think Justice Kagan sees things in quite this light, but her proposals gives ammunition to those who do.

I regret that Justice Kagan started down this road. Given that President Biden will soon announce his own Court reform, this issue is on the wall. Once the filibuster is abolished–as Senator Elizabeth Warren has promised–I suspect the Court will be placed under this regime. My other predictions from four years ago may yet come to fruition.



​

 

I've yet to hear a conservative rebuttal to Supreme Court term limits other than "It's sour grapes, you'd never support this if a Democrat weren't proposing it"

Rotating terms seems like an ideal solution to a politicized court.