Advertisement
Biden to Announce Plans to Reform US Supreme Court
Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Subscriptions
Read the Retort using RSS.
RSS Feed
Author Info
Corky
Joined 2005/05/24Visited 2024/10/21
Status: user
MORE STORIES
Trump's Social Security Plan: 33% Benefits Cuts (25 comments) ...
Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway (16 comments) ...
J6 Rioter: I Was Duped by Trump's Election Lies (3 comments) ...
The True Dangers of Trump's Economic Plans (1 comments) ...
Trump Too 'Exhausted' to do Interviews (33 comments) ...
Alternate links: Google News | Twitter
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
"He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday became the first member of the supreme court to call publicly for beefing up its new ethics code by adding a way to enforce it.
"The thing that can be criticized is, you know, rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one " this set of rules " does not," Kagan said at an annual judicial conference held by the ninth circuit. More than 150 judges, attorneys, court personnel and others attended.
.
The court had been considering adopting an ethics code for several years, but the effort took on added urgency after it was reported last year that Justice Clarence Thomas did not disclose luxury trips he accepted from a major Republican donor.
Public confidence in the court has slipped sharply in recent years. In June, a survey for the Associated Press-Norc Center for Public Affairs Research found that four in 10 US adults have hardly any confidence in the justices and 70% believe they are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters."
#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-27 06:10 PM | Reply
finally some action on SOMETHING.
Promises or something tangible?
#2 | Posted by fresno500 at 2024-07-27 07:52 PM | Reply
Did they ask about Congress? Executive Branch?
You think it was lower or faster fall than congress or the executive branch? Or did they not ask, if not why not?
Would you be shocked if the trend in confidence in the government branches is decreasing?
Do you believe more rules will fix it?
#3 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-27 10:50 PM | Reply
No ------- crooks, you fake ----- bitch.
#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-07-27 11:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
#3
Meaningless word salads a speciality.
#5 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-28 12:35 AM | Reply
Elizabeth Warren: Supreme Court is on the Ballot'
"We've got a Supreme Court that is actively undermining our democracy," Warren said.
drudge.com
#6 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-28 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4
"We've got a Supreme Court that is actively undermining our democracy,"
All the fingers point to Trump and the Republican Party.
As if that's a surprise to anyone.
#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-07-28 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
#3 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT
A less corrupt Congress (specifically on the Republican side of the isle) could fix it by impeaching and removing a couple of corrupt conservative Justices.
#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-07-28 05:36 PM | Reply
#3 - The difference is that we can replace Congress or POTUS at the ballot box, as long as Dotard doesn't win, the SCOTUS supermajority is cemented there for years, to enforce the dictates of the political and religious minority over the majority, and to ensure corporations can make maximum profits without government intervention on behalf of the public good. Half of this super majority was selected by a president who won a minority of votes, who has been adjudicated of cheating to win that election, and determined by the Republican-run Senate Intel Committee to have cooperated with Russia to get elected.
#9 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-07-28 11:37 PM | Reply
@#3 ... Do you believe more rules will fix it? ...
That your current alias even asks that question highlights the significance of the problem.
Maybe more rules will fix it.
Maybe not.
So, should we just ignore the problem that even your current alias seems to acknowledge exists?
#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-28 11:55 PM | Reply
Good! Steps must be taken to return accountability to the Supreme Court, instead of being paid off by billionaires to do their bidding...
#11 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-29 06:26 AM | Reply
Hate the player, not the game. It sucks that Dems have devolved into a party that can't get anything done so they just change the rules, but that's what our government documents are built to allow. The reason why it is so damaging to the country is because of the message it sends to everyone. And basically, that message says that rules shouldn't even be followed. Most of what Biden is proposing is already law, proving once again Dems ignore laws.
"Good! Steps must be taken to return accountability to the Supreme Court, instead of being paid off by billionaires to do their bidding..."
Sweet. So when Reps propose changes for the same reason, you will be 100% behind them. After all, Reps use the same excuse when they want to make changes. I know Dem leaders have herded you into thinking there are no rich Dems but, please, live in reality and accept that both sides have special interests that rich people control and allow. When it's your own party doing it, you stay silent. When it's the other party, all of a sudden it's bad and must be fixed. So stupid.
#12 | Posted by humtake at 2024-07-29 11:55 AM | Reply
#12 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE
But of course it's okay when Republicans change the rules and refuse to even consider voting on a Democrat SCOTUS nominee.
#13 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2024-07-29 02:12 PM | Reply
Clambake is one dumb ----.
#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-07-29 03:59 PM | Reply
. It sucks that Dems have devolved into a party that can't get anything done so they just change the rules, but that's what our government documents are built to allow
Think about it this way. Under the current system, the court's members are chosen either by unforeseen happenstance vacancies or politically rigged departures. If one political party wants to change the makeup of the court and enough people vote for that party, the resulting changes are infinitely more democratic than the current process.
#15 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-29 04:32 PM | Reply
So let me get this straight, Biden, who has been in DC for over 50 years, is demanding term limits from SCOTUS.
LOL Sure.
#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-29 04:57 PM | Reply
Biden ran for election every few years, 1Nut, so those two things are not at all the same.
How long did you say you've been in this country?
#17 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-29 06:02 PM | Reply
That was a great little talk he gave after making the announcement of the SC Reform Plan.
He finished by saying that July 4th 2026 we will be celebrating the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the country...
... and we should be thinking about what kind of country we want to be on that day when we vote this year.
#18 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-29 06:26 PM | Reply
When Democrats /left lose they seek to rig the game instead of working harder.
It's pathetic.
#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-29 10:06 PM | Reply
Ah so, let's mark TrumpyBell down in support of graft and bribes for SC Justices.
Now, who is surprised by that?
#20 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-29 10:17 PM | Reply
" When Democrats /left lose they seek to rig the game"
It's Roy Cohn-level lies like this one, which cement your reputation.
In related facts, you've never even mentioned the half-dozen ways Republicans were seeking to rig the game when they lost.
#GotRankHypocrisy?
#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-29 11:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4
You can always count on a big deflection from Danforth.
Lemme guess - you thing court packing is a great idea if Dems do it, amirite?
#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-29 11:43 PM | Reply
" You can always count on a big deflection "
I'm stating a fact. I've had more heart attacks than you've had posts about Trump's other-than-J6 corrupt routes to rig an election he knew he lost.
Hell, you've never even commented about his attempt to steal your home-state neighbors' votes.
That's not a "deflection", that's calling you out for being a partisan hack.
#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-30 12:31 AM | Reply
Danforth,
I am not going to defend a position I've never taken.
Is it a coincidence that if this gambit were to be successful (it would actually require a constitutional amendment, but the left is about seizing power NOW and deal with the consequences later) that Thomas, Robert's and Alito would be removed from the court?
Do you support this? Can you comment on topic? Ever?
#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 02:29 AM | Reply
but the left is about seizing power NOW and deal with the consequences later
#24 | Posted by BellRinger
You're such a drone.
Insect variety.
#25 | Posted by Zed at 2024-07-30 07:35 AM | Reply
Thomas, Robert's and Alito would be removed from the court?
Each one of them is demonstrably corrupt.
Drone.
#26 | Posted by Zed at 2024-07-30 07:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Thomas has been for sale so long he should be called CLEARANCE Thomas.
#27 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-07-30 11:15 AM | Reply
Why would it require a Constitutional Amendment? Because you think it should?
#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-07-30 11:22 AM | Reply
" the left is about seizing power NOW and deal with the consequences later"
This, from the guy who TO THIS DATE has never posted a single keystroke about the other half-dozen corrupt J6 routes Trump was attempting.
Sorry, you were talking about seizing power ... .
#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-30 12:09 PM | Reply
Talk about a deflection. Court packing isn't even on the menu for Biden - but it should be.
And for the record, yes, i absolutely support court packing if Dems do it, just like you'd support it if Republicans did it. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the number of justices on the Court; that's for Congress and the President to decide together. Cry about it and change the Constitution if you don't like it.
#30 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-30 12:36 PM | Reply
#19 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
Your lack of awareness is as stunning as usual.
#31 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-30 12:38 PM | Reply
#30. I absolutely oppose court packing regardless of the political party.
What Biden is proposing is court packing by another name.
#32 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 01:22 PM | Reply
What Biden is proposing is court packing by another name
No. Court packing is adding more justices to the court. Term limits and an ethics code do not change the number of justices on the court, unless you're suggesting that Thomas would take so many bribes from billionaires that he would be kicked off the court.
#33 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-30 01:41 PM | Reply
" Why would it require a Constitutional Amendment? Because you think it should?
#28 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-07-30 11:22 AM | REPLY | FLAG":
This is why:
" Article III Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
It's a lifetime appointment as laid out in the Constitution. In order to impose a term limit the Constitution would have to changed, which necessitates an amendment.
#34 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 01:42 PM | Reply
" Court packing is adding more justices to the court. Term limits"
The term limit proposed would "coincidentally" immediately remove 3 conservative justices and presumably replace them with whomever Harris chooses should she win.
But, it's all academic as this would require an amendment and that's not going to happen.
#35 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 01:44 PM | Reply
The logical issue with term limits is that each presidential election there would be a calculation on how many justices would be replaced. Putting that on the ballot.
It would be possible after a few early retirements to have one president replace a majority of the justices.
This is a horrible idea and it politicizes the SC even more.
Why not support congressional term limits?
In the end this is just thrown out to the Lumpers as a talking point with no practical way for it to be authorized.
#36 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-30 01:50 PM | Reply
But, it's all academic as this would require an amendment and that's not going to happen. #35 | Posted by BellRinger
Biden knows this, Lumpers don't.
#37 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-30 01:50 PM | Reply
Finally the enforcement of the ethics would be something executive branch would claim.
Then it would be targeted with ethics violations against uncooperative justices.
Crazy times if that happened.
#38 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-30 01:52 PM | Reply
The proposal doesn't say anything that could reasonably lead to that conclusion. Its tone is entirely forward-looking. Have you even read it, or just reactionary rightwing articles?
#39 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-30 01:56 PM | Reply
" The term limit proposed would "coincidentally" immediately remove 3 conservative justices"
You just made that up.
Typical hack.
#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-30 02:26 PM | Reply
"" The term limit proposed would "coincidentally" immediately remove 3 conservative justices" --- You just made that up.
Typical hack."
18 year term = Thomas, Roberts and Alito being immediately removed, but Sotomayor still has time. Coincidence? Ha! We all know what this is. ---
#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH - Democrat projection and Democrat math (TM)
#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 10:19 PM | Reply
@#35 ... The term limit proposed would "coincidentally" immediately remove 3 conservative justices ...
No.
www.politico.com
... Proponents of term limits have argued that Congress could abide by the provision by requiring justices after 18 years to take a form of "senior status" -- a role in which they would not serve full-time but could fill in for active justices who were recused from a case. ...
So, they would not be removed, as your current alias asserts.
#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-30 10:29 PM | Reply
A distinction without a difference, Lamplighter.
Seriously...."could fill in for active justices who were recused from a case. ..."
1. How often does that happen over a 4 year period, and....
2. Who would get to choose which excommunicated justice would get the privilege of "filling in" for a single case?
#43 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-30 10:34 PM | Reply
@#43 ... A distinction without a difference ...
Yeah, quite a difference.
Look beyond the short term effect vs the long term strategic effect that Pres Biden is proposing.
(fwiw, Pres Biden is a strategic thinker and planner, vs fmr Pres Trump's transactional approach -- how does this benefit me now?)
Don't look at the Justices who will be removed in the short term, but the ongoing process of keeping SCOTUS fresh with current Judges.
Nine Justices, with an 18-year limit on serving before going to a senior status?
That seems, on the long term, to indicate there will be a new Justice every two years, one representing the current political mien of the US. The effect of that would be to effectively remove SCOTUS from politics.
Quite the change from how it is now, i.e., deeply ensconced in politics.
#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-30 10:51 PM | Reply
fwiw...
Senior status en.wikipedia.org
... Senior status is a form of semi-retirement for United States federal judges. To qualify, a judge in the federal court system must be at least 65 years old, and have served at least 10 years, and the sum of the judge's age and years of service as a federal judge must be at least 80 years.[1] As long as senior judges carry at least a 25 percent caseload or meet other criteria for activity, they remain entitled to maintain a staffed office and chambers, including a secretary and their normal complement of law clerks, and they continue to receive annual cost-of-living increases.[1] The president may appoint new full-time judges to fill the vacancies in full-time judgeships caused by senior status.[1] Some U.S. states have similar systems for senior judges. State courts with a similar system include Iowa (for judges on the Iowa Court of Appeals), Pennsylvania, and Virginia (for justices of the Virginia Supreme Court).[2][3][4] Statutory requirements ...
As long as senior judges carry at least a 25 percent caseload or meet other criteria for activity, they remain entitled to maintain a staffed office and chambers, including a secretary and their normal complement of law clerks, and they continue to receive annual cost-of-living increases.[1] The president may appoint new full-time judges to fill the vacancies in full-time judgeships caused by senior status.[1]
Some U.S. states have similar systems for senior judges. State courts with a similar system include Iowa (for judges on the Iowa Court of Appeals), Pennsylvania, and Virginia (for justices of the Virginia Supreme Court).[2][3][4]
Statutory requirements ...
That's the current definition.
#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-30 10:54 PM | Reply
18 year term = Thomas, Roberts and Alito being immediately removed, but Sotomayor still has time. Coincidence? Ha! We all know what this is.
Nobody has ever said or suggested the term limits would be retroactive. Again, the tone of the proposal is entirely forward-looking. You are inventing fake reasons to oppose it because you cannot defend a reality-based opposition on the merits.
#46 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-30 11:29 PM | Reply
@#46 ... Nobody has ever said or suggested the term limits would be retroactive. ...
Should they be retroactive?
#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-30 11:39 PM | Reply
Irrelevant; Jeff's saying Biden's proposal is to make them retroactive, which is a lie. Delving into the merits of his fantasy gives it more oxygen than it deserves.
#48 | Posted by JOE at 2024-07-31 12:12 AM | Reply
@#40 ... Irrelevant; ...
I do not disagree.
As I have noted, Pres Biden's proposal is a strategic one in some respects, not just a short term proposal.
#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-31 12:20 AM | Reply
Post a commentComments are closed for this entry.Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable
Comments are closed for this entry.
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable
