Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

it would effectively render the constitution moot, and all its protections subject to the political winds of the day.

 

I think he's saying that Biden loaded the gun and therefore all poor behavior afterward lies at his feet. It's the same thinking that absolves McConnell for blocking nearly all judicial nominations under Obama and, instead, blames Harry Reid for "going nuclear".

It's the "why are you hitting yourself" defense.

 

Seems like it’s now completely within Biden’s powers to make these changes unilaterally as well as imprison dip$hit, Alito, Uncle Thomas, and anyone who he deems a threat to the country’s wellbeing. It would be within his official duties and beyond prosecution. He has immunity.

Do it and roll out the military to make sure there are no repercussions.

 

Please, God, let Joe Biden do this. There could be no better endorsement of libertarianism.

 

You guys live in such a fantasy. Endorsing changes is not declaring an executive order. Any dip sh$t who went through middle school government knows this would have to go through the House and Senate. The word ENDORSE should tell you enough to understand that but instead you guys try to act like he’s suddenly king of the world.

It’ll never happen but it’s a nice campaign issue to bring light to the blatant corruption and lack of accountability with the Supreme Court. If you want to throw a fit about the constitution then I would task you to actually go read the federalist papers and see what people like Hamilton thought of kings. The Supreme Court has no governing oversight. No terms. Unelected. Can overturn the executive branches justice department on anything they want essentially. And can blatantly do things like take bribes because they know they can just get a case thrown out if the AG ever had the guts to indict a justice.

It’s not at all what the framers intended for the role. It’s antidemocratic and Bidens endorsement for changes is well overdue.

 

Duh. We all know there will be no reform.

 

The current court had already done that.

 

People really are ignorant. This was not an executive order people. The word endorsement should make that pretty obvious, but even republican assistant attorney generals of past take the opportunity to try and confuse people… likely on purpose.

Also the fear mongering won’t work anyways because the Supreme Court has like a 20% approval rating. People could care less and the only people who would care about Supreme Court reforms are the ones benefiting from its corruption and power grabbing.

Even most republican voters I know.. some even MAGA die hards… aren’t fans of the Supreme Court being these untouchable oracle type of clerics who are above the law and rule from the bench. They’ll admit that they like on what they’ve ruled on in their favor and agree with it, but still don’t like how they have no accountability.

So the fact that we have the usual maga suspects here coming out and also trying to propagate fear and misinformation tells you all you need to know about how far beyond “concerned voter” they are and now might as well be paid surrogates for the Heritage Foundation or the Donald Trump campaign. Really strategic level misinformation and preying on the notion that people are too dumb to know this is not a royal decree and that it’s just an endorsement for Congress to pass a bill since this would have to happen in the Senate and then the house. It could have already have happened if Joe Manchin and Sinema didn’t block it a couple years ago.

Dems missed their chance to try and make a deal with Manchin and so we are stuck with the current situation until the voters sometime hopefully in the near future for a Dem president, house, and senate in the same election. That might not happen for another 20 years and if Trump wins it’ll probably never happen again.

 

Not sure what it is now, but in late 2023 (from a Morning Consult poll):

• 75% (including 72% of Republicans) supported a binding ethics code for SCOTUS
  
• 68% (including 59% of Republicans) supported term limits for the justices.
• The SCOTUS ruling giving POTUS absolute immunity is recent, so we don't yet have polling data on it. However, before the decision, ~70% said POTUS should NOT have immunity for crimes committed while in office.

What Biden proposed (through congressional actions and amendment) is not new, and has been very popular.

 

I agree politically these reforms are likely a DOA. What I'm curious about though is for people concerned about government power is why wouldn't Libertarians not want more restrictions and accountability on the power of the Executive and Judicial branches? This seems like a Faustian bargain from the Libertarian standpoint to reduce accountability on those branches in return for some policy benefits like lower taxes and less regulation (on some things). Over long term though less accountability would lead to those branches increasing the power of government at the detriment of individual liberty.

 

It's amazing how many consider it so shocking that the highest court in the land should be held to ethical standards as the other courts.

 

Yes, to us normal people, it's pretty weird and shocking. The people against ethics reform for the highest court are a small minority.

Among that small minority, most are just weirdos. But I assume a part of that small minority is concerned about the "binding" portion and how that's executed. Those might be legitimate concerns and interesting to hear about, but to say the highest court should not be bound to ethics is just not normal.

 

Keep getting your 3%...

 

I think you and others are misinterpreting the objection being made to the third point about Congress imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court. The objection is NOT to ethics per se; the objection is the idea of Congress having the authority to impose "ethics" on the Supreme Court.

The Court has recently adopted a code of ethics for itself. I think if Congress were really serious about things like ethics and term limits, it would begin with itself and work outward from there.

 

lol

 

The integrity of the court has been compromised by the extreme politicization ironically through Congressional machinations.

The Supreme Court has waded into areas it should not - it has overreached into executive and congressional affairs. The way it is restricting federal agencies is objectionable authority to an extreme.

It needs to be reformed as it is now a tool of the far right and wrecking hundreds of years of stability undoing the work of countless previous justices based on a spurious political ideology.

 

Not at all. As I stated: "But I assume a part of that small minority is concerned about the 'binding' portion and how that's executed. Those might be legitimate concerns and interesting to hear about, but to say the highest court should not be bound to ethics is just not normal."

The Constitution grants Congress significant power over the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Historically, Congress has exercised the ability to alter the size of the Court through legislation, a power far more drastic than imposing ethics requirements. While the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention ethics rules for the Supreme Court, Congress's role in regulating the judiciary suggests they have the authority to address this issue. Given their constitutional responsibilities regarding the courts, it's reasonable to expect Congress to consider reforms that enhance the ethical standards of the highest court in the land. I've yet to encounter a compelling argument for why Congress should abstain from exploring such reforms, especially given the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

 

I don't see a single person, anywhere, arguing that "the highest court should not be bound to {sic} by ethics" . . . anywhere.