Quote:The regime with the most unconstitutional track record in modern history is seeking to destroy the only functioning institution left in America by completely overhauling it.

President Joe Biden, with the help of The Washington Post, advanced his public delegitimization campaign against the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday when he introduced a radical plan that would fulfill his party’s yearslong goal of destroying the judicial branch’s ruling body.

The man recently deemed too incompetent by the powers that be in his party to run for a second term condemned the court’s recent decision stating that former President Donald Trump has “at least presumptive immunity” for all “official acts” and once again lamented justices’ 2022 decision to do away with Roe v. Wade.

In Biden’s latest blatant lawfare attack on Democrats’ top political opponent, he used these examples from a routinely unanimous court as a springboard to argue for amending the U.S. Constitution so that “there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.” The First Family’s history of evading accountability suggests the “No President Is Above the Law” pledge would presumably not affect the patriarch of the Biden family’s international influence-peddling scheme.

Biden’s partisan mudslinging didn’t stop there.

After amplifying the Democrat-manufactured ethics scandal and false attacks linking justices to the Capitol chaos on January 6, 2021, Biden proposed in the pages of a publication known for smearing Republican-nominated justices and their families the enactment of “more predictable and less arbitrary” term limits for members of the high court.

“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,” the Biden article argues.

The president did not explain exactly how he planned to do so. The White House’s eager endorsement of a 2023 Democrat-led bill to enact 18-year term limits and forced retirement for senior justices like John Roberts and Clarence Thomas, however, suggests the Biden administration plans to use its connections in Congress to do his bidding.

Lastly, Biden expressed hope to permanently sustain slanted assaults on law-abiding Republican-nominated justices by “calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.”

“The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced,” Biden said, echoing the words of repeat SCOTUS smearers Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. “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.”

Justices already abide by a code of conduct. In fact, it’s Democrat-nominated justices who repeatedly skirt criticism from the blue party and corporate media despite their long list “glaring ethical violations.”

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Co-Chairman Leonard Leo, who has found himself in the crosshairs of Democrats’ SCOTUS delegitimization campaign in the past, said in a statement on Monday that Biden’s latest attack has nothing to do with “undue influence” and everything to do with “Democrats destroying a court they don’t agree with.”

“Let me be clear: If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I am in favor of that: no jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let’s all be honest about what this is: a campaign to destroy a court that they disagree with,” Leo said.

Biden claims he is introducing all of these ill-named “reforms” to “strengthen the guardrails of democracy.” In reality, it’s Biden, his de facto despot Harris, and Democrats who are responsible for the “increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions” (including the highest court in the land) by openly threatening SCOTUS justices over their recent decisions and promising to pack the bench.

During his 2024 State of the Union address, the 81-year-old bashed the court for undoing Democrats’ favorite 50-year-old and notoriously unconstitutional decision.

Democrat lawmakers have also attempted to intimidate the high bench into handing down more decisions that benefit their political agenda.

“President Biden’s proposal to radically overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wrote on X on Monday. “This proposal is the logical conclusion to the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional Democrats’ ongoing efforts to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Their calls to expand and pack the Court will soon resume.”

During his 2020 presidential run, Biden initially refused to admit his desire to pack the Supreme Court to favor Democrats. After mounting pressure from leftist activists desperate to retaliate against Trump’s effective court picks, however, he ditched his 1983-era hesitation and prioritized expanding the bench under the guise of so-called “court reform.”

Both Biden and his de facto despot Harris have expressed openness to packing the court with activist justices that they know would rule in favor of their corrupt and repeatedly unconstitutional regime.

Link

Only drooling idiots will believe and parrot that they can even do it. Will NEVER happen. If it ever does, the country will already be long gone.

This isn't going to work out how these communists think.

I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I still think it's rather telling that the branch of government that pretty much imposed term limits on the Presidency (the Executive Branch) and may or may not want to impose term limits on justices on the Supreme Court is the one that we need term limits on the most. Good luck on getting enough of them to reel in their own power though.

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

We need to cut it back down to 6.

(07-29-2024 04:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

We need to cut it back down to 6.

Why

Is anybody watching Biden's speech live from Austin? His pupils are dilated like saucers, and his eyes are black as coal. Dark Brandon has been resurrected!

(07-29-2024 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

We need to cut it back down to 6.

Why

That's how many were on the original SC.

(07-29-2024 04:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

We need to cut it back down to 6.

Why

That's how many were on the original SC.

Nah, I think it's fine the way it is. An odd number is better so there's a far less likely chance of a stalemates.

(07-29-2024 04:24 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support a term-limit or time limit — for any and all federal officials, whether elected or appointed. This includes all executive, legislative, and judicial office-holders.

I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

100% opposed to having more than 9 justices.

We need to cut it back down to 6.

Why

That's how many were on the original SC.

Nah, I think it's fine the way it is. An odd number is better so there's a far less likely chance of a stalemates.

Maybe, but having it at 9 increases the risk for packing by the left.

(07-29-2024 04:31 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:24 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 04:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  We need to cut it back down to 6.

Why

That's how many were on the original SC.

Nah, I think it's fine the way it is. An odd number is better so there's a far less likely chance of a stalemates.

Maybe, but having it at 9 increases the risk for packing by the left.

While I agree with you, remember what their own hero, Barack Hussein O., said several years ago: Elections have consequences. Basically, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(07-29-2024 03:51 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Only drooling idiots will believe and parrot that they can even do it. Will NEVER happen. If it ever does, the country will already be long gone.

not only that but you are giving your VP a big negative that the other side can run with. Just dumb

Democrats are spoiled, petulant children that want to change the rules every time they don’t get what they want. It’s embarrassing. The court was liberal for about 90 years, congress relinquished a lot of their authority to the courts because it was easier to let the court rule than to actually write comprehensive laws. Since the dems controlled congress forever and had the courts it all worked for them.

They don’t know how to govern without the courts fixing their problems to their satisfaction.

(07-29-2024 04:00 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Shut up old pedo

Once he’s out of White House, can we have him come back to some press conferences? They are so entertaining