News POTUS vs SCOTUS

[iRONic]

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.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

Biden to announce plans to reform US supreme court – report | US news | The Guardian

Myself I'd like to see him go much further seeing how the court basically gave him the power to do it without repercussion.

 

[ivwshane]

I don’t think he has any power to do anything and I highly doubt enough republicans would go along with it either.

I’d like to be really wrong though.

 

[BoomerD]

I think any reform of the USSC would require a constitutional amendment…nearly impossible under the best of conditions.

 

[gorobei]

Michael Steele talks with Dahlia Lithwick on reforming the court, it isnt as hard or impossible as it seems. also sen Sheldon Whitehouse has a plan to change the court.

based on precedent: expanding the number of seats is acceptable, changing the rotation of justices to outside posts, and legislature control of scotus budget is a viable mechanism.
there are more so actually watch the videos if you want real actual useful information.

 

[cytg111]

Make an amendment that you cant serve on the court from jail and hold bitches accountable to the law, give congress the power to force-recuse specific judges from certain issues.

?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I think any reform of the USSC would require a constitutional amendment…nearly impossible under the best of conditions.

I don't think the Court is set that way at all. It has been altered in the past more than once.

I'm not even sure term limits would be affected. There is something about District Judges (which also needs to be changed), but not inJustices.

I say set some odd number of years (15?) and immediately remove or reassign any that have already been in that long.

 

[Dave_5k]

I don't think the Court is set that way at all. It has been altered in the past more than once.

I'm not even sure term limits would be affected. There is something about District Judges (which also needs to be changed), but not inJustices.

I say set some odd number of years (15?) and immediately remove or reassign any that have already been in that long.

Term limits doesn't fly with the Constitution without an amendment, as one can't remove or prevent justices from serving "during good Behaviour":

"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." (Article III, Section 1, US Constitution)

But... never fear, there are potential creative workarounds, as otherwise restructuring the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate court system is completely at congressional discretion other than as specified above. Want to have 15 or 50 Supreme Court justices? Simply pass a law to make it so.

Want to make the Supreme Court mostly redundant with minimal influence? Have congress pass a law establishing a new Super-Appellate court of review for any cases above the Appeals Courts. Likely made up of rotating panel taken from all federal appeals courts, which could then be established with the term limits and a rotating appointment structure as proposed! Just applied one level lower.

Note congress was specifically granted the power to make exceptions as to what cases the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. Include in the law that if and only if that new Super-Appellate court is deadlocked does a case then have the option of being further appealed to the Supreme Court... all within congressional lawmaking power of the Constitution precisely as written.

Although this particular Supreme Court might try to nix such changes, as it has demonstrated zero respect or interest in the Constitution as written.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don’t think he has any power to do anything and I highly doubt enough republicans would go along with it either.

I’d like to be really wrong though.

This however at least some sort of statement needs to be made. We need to know who thinks Justice Thomas’s behavior does not need regulation vs who does.

 

[iRONic]

I’m hoping to see this amplified over and over and ove!! JB has the rest of his LD term to basically say or do anything.

Why not be as radical as the tangerine terrorist, Miller, Bannon, and the rest of his fascist allies?! What is the GQP gonna do, say he's old?! Dementia?! Shitlol, that's so last month.

There might not be many constitutional and or legal ways to reign in these corrupt motherfuckers but at least let everybody see it right out in the open.

 

[gorobei]

might as well start it now and see what the reaction is. the Lithwick video notes that project2025 will likely try to add a bunch of new seats to install a near permanent maga majority for 40 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Term limits doesn't fly with the Constitution without an amendment, as one can't remove or prevent justices from serving "during good Behaviour":

"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." (Article III, Section 1, US Constitution)

But... never fear, there are potential creative workarounds, as otherwise restructuring the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate court system is completely at congressional discretion other than as specified above. Want to have 15 or 50 Supreme Court justices? Simply pass a law to make it so.

Want to make the Supreme Court mostly redundant with minimal influence? Have congress pass a law establishing a new Super-Appellate court of review for any cases above the Appeals Courts. Likely made up of rotating panel taken from all federal appeals courts, which could then be established with the term limits and a rotating appointment structure as proposed! Just applied one level lower.

Note congress was specifically granted the power to make exceptions as to what cases the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. Include in the law that if and only if that new Super-Appellate court is deadlocked does a case then have the option of being further appealed to the Supreme Court... all within congressional lawmaking power of the Constitution precisely as written.

Although this particular Supreme Court might try to nix such changes, as it has demonstrated zero respect or interest in the Constitution as written.

I would definitely add in a clause to any legislation passed stripping SCOTUS of jurisdiction to hear cases involving itself because otherwise they will Calvinball their way to invalidating it. Hell, they might anyway but it’s worth a shot.

 

[K1052]

Any Supreme Court reform proposal that does not begin with packing the existing court to make the changes actionable is doomed to failure. The current makeup will not allow their own self created power to be diminished or shifted back to the legislature. We're going to have to drag them out kicking and screaming.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Sammy and Clarence need to be removed, not outnumbered.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sammy and Clarence need to be removed, not outnumbered.

And how will this happen?

 

[cytg111]

presidential immunity?

 

[Rebel_L]

Term limits doesn't fly with the Constitution without an amendment, as one can't remove or prevent justices from serving "during good Behaviour":

"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." (Article III, Section 1, US Constitution

honestly "good" behaviour is really vague, it seem just like the kind of statement begging for a code of conduct. When you define good vs bad behaviour simply say that serving more than x years is considered bad behaviour, or that serving while over the age of x is considered bad behaviour. I thought the US is all about the creative interpretation these days.

 

[gorobei]

may not go anywhere but now is the time to try. maybe they will react like the sc did when FDR threatened to expand the court.

 

[Pens1566]

may not go anywhere but now is the time to try. maybe they will react like the sc did when FDR threatened to expand the court.

They won't do anything because they know the current probability of any of it passing is zero.

For SCOTUS to really feel any pressure I think you'd need the executive to just come out and state they were going to ignore a ruling as clearly unconstitutional and that following it would violate the POTUS oath of office.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Neil Gorsuch issues two-word warning about Joe Biden's Su...

Biden last month released a new three-part plan to reform the nation's Highest Court, calling for there to be term limits on justices, among other plans.

www.newsweek.com

I figured they'd come out with the 'Independent Judiciary' thing. What does it mean? Let's ask, what doesn't it mean? It doesn't mean rogue and unaccountable. It doesn't mean 'no rules'.

 

[brycejones]

Example of how out of control the worst members of the court are:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/politics/supreme-court-missouri-new-york-trump-hush-money/index.html

Thomas and Alito would have heard Missouri’s case to stop New York from prosecuting Trump.

 

[UNCjigga]

Let’s see some unitary executive theory in action…lol.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

How could MO even possibly think they'd have standing in another state's internal case?

 

[brycejones]

How could MO even possibly think they'd have standing in another state's internal case?

I don’t think the AG really believes he did. But it was some effective virtue signaling to Trumps base as they gear up for a senate run in a few years.

 

[hal2kilo]

Neil Gorsuch issues two-word warning about Joe Biden's Su...

Biden last month released a new three-part plan to reform the nation's Highest Court, calling for there to be term limits on justices, among other plans.

www.newsweek.com

I figured they'd come out with the 'Independent Judiciary' thing. What does it mean? Let's ask, what doesn't it mean? It doesn't mean rogue and unaccountable. It doesn't mean 'no rules'.

Joe should have him shot on sight. He's immune according the them.

 

[fskimospy]

Joe should have him shot on sight. He's immune according the them.

Well if there’s one group of people who we should listen to about caution and moderation it’s definitely the people who said the president can order unlimited murder without consequence.