Biden proposes SCOTUS changes

I wish that were the case but the GOP has showed us otherwise. They have learned to protect their politicians at all costs, even their groomers

 

Interesting that you mentioned Schumer when there are 2 GOP Senators that have been serving since the mid to early 80's. Heck, Grassley has been a Senator longer than I've been alive. He's almost 90 and has already filed for reelection in 2028

 

I couldn’t agree more with this. That was criminal. I just think what Biden proposed is a Hail Mary. Hopefully it rallies enough votes to keep Trump out of office. That is the goal.

 

This is what you said:
"The current push for term limits seems to be coming from the left. Thus, the party that advocates, and has made this election all about protecting and preserving democracy (or whatever they believe that to mean), also wants to remove certain candidates from the ballot."

Members of SCOTUS aren't ever on the ballot, so that's a swing and a miss. And your argument gets even weaker when the facts come in. This change in the law would permit each President to nominate a new SCOTUS justice every two years with 18-year term limits. So in fact, it actually promotes democracy by not making SCOTUS nominations random and dependent on when judges decide to retire.

 

I do think it's just biden playing politics. IF it was 6-3 on the USSC with the Dems holding the majority then I don't think biden/harris would be caring about term limits on the USSC. Both sides are so full of crap it's a joke. I bet if given the chance a majority of the population would support term limits for both Congress and the USSC. But I am not naive enough to believe that will ever happen.

 

It's smart politics. And I'm happy Democrats are finally doing it. Run against the unpopular Supreme Court and push for reform. It's a good thing. I hope it's just the start.

 

Wow. That is sorta crazy:


.

 

It could very well be a smart political move. Starting with Presidential Immunity, I think that is a very valid argument. Did Bush go to jail for his war? Did Clinton go to jail for Perjury? I think the vast majority of the public doesn’t believe we improperly jail former Presidents as there is no history of that and the current ruling was stacked by judge’s Trump appointed.

On the pro-life issue, that also gets out the votes. So while I still give the reforms laid out today a 0.00% chance of passing, I go back to my statement on Garland that it is just politics from both sides.

 

I didn't think the two term limit thing came about until after FDR was elected to 3 terms. Don't think it ever came up before that so it wasn't something that they thought about.

 

I am for term limits for SCJ, Presidency and Congress.

I am also for this bill that would ban Congress and the President/VP from stock trading whilst in office:
Senators strike bipartisan deal for a ban on stock trading by members of Congress.

I am also in favor of the law that bans House members from becoming lobbyists for 1 year after leaving office and Senators for 2 years after leaving office. Although, I would like to see those numbers increase to 3 years and 4 years in both cases.

 

It’s silly.

The primary criticism of the Supreme Court that they use to justify the “we need more turnover” is “the Court doesn’t reflect the popular will.”

But it’s not supposed to - that’s the entire reason we have a design of the judiciary that doesn’t subject judges to election.

Other thing I’ll note is that, were it ever to pass (which it won’t, it’s just political red meat), it’s asking for a constitutional crisis. It will ultimately fall to the Supreme Court to decide whether a statutory scheme that effectively forces them into pseudo-retirement violates Article III’s good behavior clause. And if you get one or two new members on (or one or two old members involuntarily put into senior status) before the court hears it, you have the further constitutional mess of what version of the court should even hear that question.

 

Thanks for stating that with more facts than I could. Agreed.

 

You’re correct that the amendment didn’t come about until after FDR, but the norm had existed from the beginning. The proposal for the amendment didn’t come up until after FDR because no one had successfully broke the norm before him, and few even tried.

 

Thing is, the judiciary has generally been politically savvy enough to know that they actually do need to reflect popular will, even if they serve a role that at times will require being countermajoritarian. When they have lost sight of that and tried to impose themselves on the country, they've been smacked down repeatedly throughout history.

The current Republican majority isn't getting it. They'll either understand and adapt, or they'll find out that politicians in robes don't run this country. Silly is thinking that because Republicans have been fortunate enough to get a bunch of judicial picks over the past 34 years despite losing the popular vote in almost every election, they can use judicial power to force their unpopular views on the country. It ain't going to fly.

Good on the Democrats for recognizing that politicking against an unpopular SCOTUS can be quite effective. The Republicans in robes will either adapt, or they'll lose their grip on power. For most of our history, the Supreme Court has been a rotten institution. I'm quite good with the people taking back a lot of the power that SCOTUS has seized over the past 100+ years. It is not wielding that power responsibly.

 

The courts aren't supposed to care about the will of anyone except those who penned the constitution. The constitution doesnt mirror wills. It makes us free to live by our own.

 

You proved his point I think. Google is clearly driving content when DDG as advertised does not.

None of us are searching Truman in that query.
How does Trump not populate in that search?

I've always pushed back about such claims of manipulated searches, but I have seen a few of these lately that seem impossible to defend/explain.

 

but McConnell holding and advancing votes depending on who was in office to do the nominating did subject the balance of the court to elections

 

Except that's not true. There are a lot of theories of how to implement popular sovereignty and republican/democratic constitutionalism. Even most originalists don't explicitly agree with your claims. Many would respond that they should care about the understanding of the people who ratified it. That's not even getting into the people who partially or fully reject originalism and believe that the Constitution is an enduring set of principles intended to evolve with the country and adopt the best of each successive generation.

Here's a fact. In early America, the judiciary played a much, much smaller role in governance. The founding generation typically resolved their disputes through debate, legislation, and the democratic process. The aggressive judicial review we're living under is an invention of the late 19th century. The courts should care about public opinion. The people grant them their legitimacy. The people have thus far acquiesced to the judiciary claiming more and more power. But the people can take that back at any time.

P.S. The people who penned the Constitution didn't even believe that only their will mattered (or fixed the Constitution's meaning in place permanently).

 

Well thats surely one interpretation, but hardly a concrete one.

 

And he was wrong to do so.