(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.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

(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.

Sigh, explain.

(07-29-2024 11:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Some of us here have been ringing that bell since he was installed, to no avail. It seems the country, and even much of the world, is waking up to the evils of Marxism. Look at what's happening in Venezuela right now.

I may be one of the least intellectual or intelligent posters here but even I sussed out that rat long ago.

Well it's gotta pass both Houses before anything can be done.

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

Biden didn't write that.

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

No.

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

It's called "Checks and Balances" in the Constitution. Why even have a Constitution if there are none?

(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.

I don't agree with it at all until they put term limits on congress FIRST.

Start with the congress otherwise its a non starter.

Everyone knows if the left controlled SCOTUS Biden and the dims would never even bring it up or ever agree to any of this.

Its 1000% political.

(07-30-2024 08:57 AM)ericsrevenge76 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 don't agree with it at all until they put term limits on congress FIRST.

Start with the congress otherwise it’s a non starter.

All of the term-limits for all offices, across the board, could and should be enacted simultaneously.

Quote:Everyone knows if the left controlled SCOTUS Biden and the dims would never even bring it up or ever agree to any of this.

Its 1000% political.

1000% true. Biden’s entire life has been dedicated to team-over-country, and he’s going out the way he came in. The people who were telling us up until 8:00pm on June 27 that Biden was “sharp as a tack” — and even after that time said he just had a “bad debate” — are perhaps even more despicable than he is.

But just with respect to judicial term-limits, and having some sort of constitutional process to overturn bad decisions, that is something I have personally supported since college and I view this as one of those instances where a broken clock (Biden) is showing the correct time.

(07-30-2024 09:08 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  All of the term-limits for all offices, across the board, could and should be enacted simultaneously.

And giant pink elephants on Harley-Davidsons might fly out our butts too be we all know none of that is happening.

I understand your point that it "could" be done, but it won't and we all know it.

And you can't put term limits on SCOTUS until you do it to all the trash in DC.

(07-30-2024 09:13 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 09:08 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  All of the term-limits for all offices, across the board, could and should be enacted simultaneously.

And giant pink elephants on Harley-Davidsons might fly out our butts too be we all know none of that is happening.

I understand your point that it "could" be done, but it won't and we all know it.

LOL — never once in this thread or anywhere else have I said that I actually expected it to happen!

I started keeping an eye on Joe Biden back in 1987. I don’t think he even takes a dump unless there is some political/partisan advantage to be gained by it. To him, the GOP-appointed justices are just another group of political enemies, and this issue of “Court reform” is just another spitball to be thrown against them.

(07-30-2024 08:39 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

It's called "Checks and Balances" in the Constitution. Why even have a Constitution if there are none?

It would require an Amendment. I see what NG is saying. President can Veto a bill, but it can go back to Congress for a veto override. A similar mechanism for SC decisions could work. And frankly in today's world if you get a 2/3s vote out of Congress it would mean something is as universally supported as it can be.

Harris Reveals She Co-Proposed Radical Biden Plan To Shake Up Supreme Court

Quote:Republicans criticized President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’s long-term proposal on Monday to reshape the Supreme Court as a way to politicize the judicial system.

“President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms – from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law,” Harris said in a statement.

“The proposals include an 18-year term limit and requirements that justices disclose gifts, avoid political activity, and recuse themselves over conflicts of interest. They also pitched a constitutional amendment that would rescind the Supreme Court’s July finding that presidents have presumed immunity for the core functions of their office,” the New York Post reported.

Entering her second week as the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Harris acknowledged that she contributed to the plan’s formulation but did not host any public events to promote it.

“I’ve made clear how I feel about Kamala and she’s been an incredible partner to me and a champion of surprise throughout her career,” Biden said in his speech.

“And she’ll continue to be an inspiring leader and project the very idea of America — the very idea that we’re all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives.”

Nevertheless, Democrats are hoping that it will help concentrate voters as they weigh their options in a close election. Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to be the Democratic nominee and has attempted to portray her fight against Republican former President Donald Trump as “a choice between freedom and chaos,” claimed that previous rulings have called into question the court’s impartiality.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and the White House is trying to capitalize on the mounting anger among Democrats over the court’s rulings that reversed long-standing precedents on federal regulatory authority and abortion rights.

Liberals have also expressed dismay about disclosures regarding choices and relationships made by several members of the conservative wing of the court that they claim cast doubt on their impartiality, the Associated Press reported.

“I have great respect for our institutions and separation of powers. What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach,” Biden argued in a Washington Post op-ed published Monday.

Later, Harris said in a statement that the American people needed to have faith in a Supreme Court free of ethics scandals and decisions that flouted established precedent.

She said the reforms being proposed “will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law.”

Biden is advocating for the elimination of lifetime appointments to the judiciary.

He believes that Congress should pass legislation to establish a system in which the president in office would appoint a justice every two years to serve on the court for eighteen years.

He contends that term limits would provide some stability to the nomination process and help guarantee that court membership changes regularly.

In addition, he wants Congress to enact laws creating an ethical code for judges, which would mandate that they declare gifts, abstain from public politics, and withdraw from cases in which they or their spouses have a financial or other conflict of interest.

In addition, Biden is urging Congress to enact a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s recent landmark immunity decision, which held that former presidents are immune from prosecution in most cases.

This ruling virtually eliminated the possibility that the former president would be tried before the November election and prolonged the delay in the Washington criminal case against Trump on allegations he planned to avenge his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

Term limitations may have an impact on the first three justices listed on the right. Almost 33 years have passed since Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court. Justice Samuel Alito has served for eighteen years, and Chief Justice John Roberts has been in office for nineteen.

Trump has criticized judicial reform as the Democrats’ desperate attempt to “Play the Ref.”

“The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country,” Trump posted on his Truth Social site this month.

The Biden campaign will contribute to drawing attention to recent high court rulings, such as the 2022 decision by the conservative majority court, which consists of three judges Trump selected, that eliminates women’s constitutional rights to an abortion.

Biden has come a long way since the announcement; as a candidate, he had been leery of calls for high court change. However, he has been more outspoken during his administration about his opinion that the court has abandoned traditional constitutional interpretation.

Last week, he announced during an Oval Office speech that he would pursue Supreme Court reform during his final months in office, calling it “critical to our democracy.”

(07-30-2024 08:39 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

It's called "Checks and Balances" in the Constitution. Why even have a Constitution if there are none?

It’s not called checks and balances in the constitution. It was co-equal parts of the government. That being so one equal part of the government cannot restrain or disassemble or caused to be irrelevant another equal portion of the government. Obviously the liberals do not like the court being a coequal portion of government.

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

There is: Legislative branch passes a Constitutional law; Executive signs it.

All the Court does is referee if the law is Constitutional.

(07-30-2024 07:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 08:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I support some non-judicial mechanism to reverse decisions of the US Supreme Court.

WTF, what's the point of having the court then? It's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country. Any mechanism that limit's its ability to perform its function is foolish and short-sighted.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong, there should be some sort of remedy. That remedy or “mechanism” as I called it, should not be quick or easy, and it should only happen when there is a broad consensus in favor. But it should be possible, without simply having to wait for individual justices to be replaced.

Is there now such a mechanism, has there ever been such a mechanism? I don't think so. They are the final arbiters of the law, giving another person or body authority over them to the extent that their decisions can be shot down undermines the very purpose and foundation of the court.

If one of their decisions can be shot down then any of them can and they are no longer the ultimate legal authority in this country.