Sunday, August 11, 2024

Poll: Americans Want to Rein in Supreme Court

Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of reforming the Supreme Court along lines proposed by President Joe Biden, even as approval for the high court is marked by a sharp political divide, according to a new USA TODAY-Ipsos election year poll.

More

Comments

More from the article...

... A large majority " 76% of Americans " support a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, according to the poll. The result comes after more than a year of revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose receiving millons of dollars' worth of free luxury trips and other gifts.

A code of conduct had the support of 70% of Republicans, 76% of independents and 89% of Democrats. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-11 11:55 AM

Poll: Americans want to rein in Supreme Court justices

Then maybe they should have thought about that before sitting on their plump butts on election day for the last 44 years or voting for Republicans/Greens?

#2 | Posted by censored at 2024-08-11 12:05 PM

Then maybe they should have thought about that before sitting on their plump butts on election day for the last 44 years or voting for Republicans/Greens?

#2 | Posted by censored at 2024-08-11 12:05 PM | Reply |

It's easier to blame third party voters than it is to blame the Democratic party for foisting horrible candidates on us. In fact it requires no introspection at all.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-08-11 01:53 PM

It's easier to blame third party voters [...].
#3 | Posted by LauraMohr

Fixed it for you.

Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but we are a semi-functional democracy. That makes voters responsible for the idiots we put in charge. Not some fluke or shocking result that, after electing Republicans (through action or inaction) for 44 years, we get a Republican SCOTUS that does Republican SCOTUS things.

#4 | Posted by censored at 2024-08-11 02:25 PM

#4 | Posted by censored

Voters were warned and warned and warned that could happen.

Instead, they got they voted third party to "show us who's who!", allowing Trump in the WH.

Nadar voters gave us Bush in 2000 too.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-11 02:59 PM

Abolish it or stack the living ---- out of it.
Those are only 2 options imho.

#6 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-08-11 06:54 PM

Abolish it or stack the living ---- out of it.
Those are only 2 options imho.

#7 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-08-11 06:57 PM

@#7 ... Abolish it or stack the living ---- out of it. ...

Abolishing it would require a Constitutional amendment. Ditto for one or two of Pres Biden's proposals.

I suspect Pres Biden's proposals may be more likely to pass the amendment process than abolishing SCOTUS.

Stacking it? Is that a good precedent to put into place?


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-11 07:09 PM

#8 | Posted by LampLighter

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before.

Democrats Reintroduce Bill To Expand U.S. Supreme Court

By Paige Moskowitz

May 16, 2023

WASHINGTON, D.C. " On Tuesday, May 16, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats reintroduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Once Dems have a good majority it'll happen.

www.democracydocket.com

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-12 12:29 AM

@#9 ... Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before. ...

Yeah.

That is what I was referring to when I wrote...

"Stacking it? Is that a good precedent to put into place?"


#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-12 12:44 AM

It's Constitutional. SC already expanded by Congress 7 times. No problemo ...

#11 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-12 01:07 AM

I don't see changing the number of justices will solve the problem. It seems to me that it's the vetting process that should be changed in order to remove any influence by the President, such as was the truncated vetting of Justice Kavanaugh.

And perhaps it would be safer if recommendations for future nominations come from only the American Bar Association rather than a partisan think tank.

The Senate has the authority and the evidence right now to fix the current problem but so far all they've done is talk. Perhaps impeachments should also be left up to the American Bar.

#12 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-12 01:22 AM

@#12 ... I don't see changing the number of justices will solve the problem. ...

Yup.

In my view, that is a short-term attempted solution to a longer term problem.

... And perhaps it would be safer if recommendations for future nominations come from only the American Bar Association rather than a partisan think tank. ...

Then partisan think tanks could be influencing the ABA.

I'm not convinced that would be a good thing.


I'll go with keeping the current Senate approval process in place but with some manner of term limits.

One change at a time. Then take a step back and see how that change works out.

I understand that this would not be a quick fix, by any means.

But I also proffer, do we really want a quick fix here?

Or a strategic fix?

Stated differently, do we want to make ourselves happy?

Or do we want to make future generations happy?



#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-12 01:39 AM

LAMP

I'm just thinking that the American Bar takes a certain amount of pride in itself, and they take a dim view of unscrupulous behavior among their ranks ~ unlike politicians motivated by money, lobbyists, personal gain and control.

Right now the Justices have no fear of anything.

If you remember, even Neil Gorsuch had the unmitigated gall to threaten the President of the United States with the words "Be careful."

#14 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-12 02:13 AM

@#14 ... I'm just thinking that the American Bar takes a certain amount of pride in itself, and they take a dim view of unscrupulous behavior among their ranks ...

Currently, I'll agree, that is true.

But, what if they are infiltrated by, say, the Heritage Foundation, or even the We Want Socialism foundation? How can voters affect that change?

That's my basic point.

I want to keep the selection approval process in the realm of folk that are elected. I definitely do not want to have one party with an advantage over any other party.

But, and this is my main point, there should be a limit upon how long those approved Justices serve, and there needs to be a strict policy of ethics.



#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-12 02:25 AM

LAMP

I'm trying to avoid a lengthy constitutional convention if possible. When I suggested the American Bar I was only referring to the vetting of any number of possible nominations from which a President could choose ~ not just one. I'm trying to make vetting for ethics and bipartisanship in a judge's background a #1 priority and a final determining factor. Not to mention the wisdom that comes from many years on a federal bench.

IMO, that's what has been lacking in Republican choices.

I think if you want to take the Supreme Court out of politics you have to take politicians out of the Supreme Court or, at least pare it down to eliminate the bad seeds.

#16 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-12 07:33 AM

Fascinating. Americans never felt a desperate need to put a strict code of conduct on Supreme Court Justice until Trump and the MAGAts came along and chose to stack the Court with hardcore rightwingers by hook or by crook. Now that the Trumpers with the help of the Heritage Foundation have broken the Supreme Court, most Americans are desperate to fix it. We right now have a partisan Supreme Court that does not reflect the values of most Americans or traditions of this nation. The Alitos, Gorsuch', Thomas', and Kavanaughs have no place on America's top court. They represent the extremist Republican base. They do not represent the rest of us.

#17 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-08-12 02:58 PM

MODER8

"They do not represent the rest of us."

Neither does Chief Justice Roberts who is claiming to be hapless to keep HIS court on the straight and narrow.

That's a clear indication that Roberts is not only 100% onboard with the Republican's plot to destroy democracy but is also working with the Heritage Foundation to construct the new Constitution in readiness for America's first unholy dictatorship, led by a certifiable, foaming-at-the mouth, nutcase with a domestic Enemies List and vowing retribution like a comic book villain.

#18 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-12 06:11 PM

A crooked politicized partisan media controlled by a small handful of mega rich oligarchs is the true enemy of the state and never forget. They control us.

#19 | Posted by Robson at 2024-08-12 09:11 PM

voters responsible for the idiots we put in charge. Not some fluke

Not some fluke??

Not some fluke?

Are you sure?

Because Hillary was guaranteed to win.

91% of the vote was hers.

Trump was lucky to have won 10%.

Are you saying Hillary wasn't guaranteed the win?

Why didn't she fight harder for it.

For the record. I do believe it wasn't a fluke that she lost. I doubted she could win. But everyone was so excited there was no room for contradiction. Regardless of Russia or republican interference. She lost.

There's no room for contradiction now either.

Harris is gonna win, it's guaranteed!!!

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-08-12 09:27 PM

CLOWN

Trump has a plan to prevent a Harris certification at the county level. It's illegal, of course but there a lot of counties in swing states that could embroil the election in hundreds of post-election lawsuits to determine the results.

Now that the word is out, steps are being taken to block Trump's plan, including a advance notice to country officials that they could be subject to charges but there's no guarantee that the more rabid among them wouldn't try to muck things up anyway.

#21 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-13 02:15 AM

I have zero doubt republicans will cheat.

They were just too slow in 2020.

Project 2025 is in the works.

Getting Trump elected is paramount.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-08-13 03:18 AM

CLOWN

"They were just too slow in 2020."

Also, to many hands in the soup ~ All of which, except Pence, are either convicted, waiting to be convicted or flipping.

Trump learned in 2020 that too many hands spoil the soup. Now he's trying to go straight to the county-by-county certifiers in swing states to carry out his master plan.

Trump was so sure his master plan would work that he even announced his intentions, forgetting that what he was doing was illegal and all involved would face the same fate as the fake electors.

#23 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-08-13 05:13 AM

There's no room for contradiction now either.

Harris is gonna win, it's guaranteed!!!
#20 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You got a guarantee?

Damn it. I didn't get one!

Nothing is guaranteed bro. Except death and taxes.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-13 12:13 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

This Is Post-Roe America (173 comments)

Central Park 5 Sue Trump for Defamation (72 comments)

U.S. Infant Deaths Rose After Fall of Roe v. Wade (59 comments)

Harris Leads Trump 2-1 Among the Earliest Voters (36 comments)

Trump Talking About Arnold Palmer's Private Parts is Just Weird (36 comments)

McDonald's Donald Trump Worked at Failed Last Health Inspection (30 comments)

Guardrails Will Avert Manipulation of Election Outcome (30 comments)

Trump Calls Judge 'evil' for Releasing Files Before Election (24 comments)