Biden proposes SCOTUS changes

that and $5 will get me a cup of coffee.

what is the remedy

 

What isn't concrete about it? As a matter of constitutional history, the belief that the Constitution's meaning would be settled by later generations was not a minority view among its drafters and ratifiers. That is how the British constitution worked. Thus, early Americans, while looking to break from the British tradition by writing our Constitution down, were still operating in the context of their times with the prevailing cultural understandings.

Originalism is an invention of the 20th century. Does it have roots in a late 18th century theory of the Constitution? Sure. As does living constitutionalism. The Constitution only works if each generation remains committed to it. How do you ask people (women, people of color, etc.) to remain committed to a document that they and people like them had no voice in crafting? You do it by pulling from the best of each generation, the values that make America great.

You can do that while still remaining committed to the Constitution's text and principles. And from a standpoint of democratic legitimacy, it is the best way to interpret the Constitution. That's my view, at least.

 

To be clear. This is what I meant by not concrete. I wasnt ripping your view. I was just pointing out that no ones view on this is concrete.

That is kind of the beauty of the document.

 

That's exactly it. We all have our views on the Constitution. My point is that the judiciary's views only carry weight because the people grant them that legitimacy. We enforce those views. If we stop enforcing them, the judiciary's words are opinions on a page and not binding on anyone.

That's why they should care about the will of the people. It doesn't mean they need to rule in the way the majority wants in every case. But it does mean that if they consistently are out of step with the political majority, they're going to lose credibility as an institution.

 

I think you give them WAY too much credit.

 

It is what it is. The world we live in. I've used DDG for years now just to avoid the preferential searches for clients/advertisers.

That said, given the DDG responses, not really sure what they're worried about. Also, it would make more sense to filter/censor the responses to avoid the "optics" of this.

 

could it be based on total number of historical searches and not something nefarious?

 

Well I am sure he didn't come up with any of it. He may not even know it has been proposed. The news release said it was his administration and didn't even try and pretend he has any say so.

 

Which founding Father’s agreed with that? I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole with a lawyer on this, but did get a 5 / 5 on my AP history test 25 years ago. Isn’t the Judiciary Branch suppose to interpret the laws? Isn’t the constitution the most important law of the land? You can directly state that the court failed to do that with how they granted all Presidents (Trump is the only one who ever needed it) Immunity.

The judiciary’s view is the only view that matters.

Biden is stumbling to make my points in a public speech in Austin. Kudos, as he is only focused on IMMUNITY as that is what this argument should be about. He is still Biden in 2024 and should have handed this important task over to anyone else. Obama, Kamala, Mitt Romney, etc could have made the point more effectively.

Fumbling the ball at the 25 yard line when he finally got two much needed interceptions.

It’s easier to be a double hater, but I can’t support this senile man’s view on reforming the constitution any more than Trump’s narcissistic view.

 

What do you mean by "that"? That the judiciary's power comes from the people (putting aside the obvious popular sovereignty point)? Hamilton's hints at it in Federalist No. 78:
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Of course, Hamilton's big-picture argument isn't faring so well.

That is incorrect, both as a matter of original understanding of the Constitution and as a matter of practical reality.

Well, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it. I disagree. His term limit plan is a good one, and I fully support an immunity amendment. Odds are neither come to pass, but it's good to put them out there.

 

I read this when reading about Bidens proposal. "The president is focused like a laser beam on making sure that the next six months matter to the American people," Stephen Benjamin, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, told reporters on Monday.

 

Yes, that big picture argument doesn’t look good. It gives too much power to the executive branch, which I think we are both arguing against. But I did ask for one founding father that wanted to limited the Judiciary Branch, so point taken.


The Judiciary view is the only one that matters unless someone more eloquent than Biden can articulate a counter view. Or of course a legislative victory, but that is not going to happen.

I am all for reasonable term limits and strongly agree that the immunity claim needs to be overturned. Biden is just too weak to fight that battle. You can say it is like healthcare and anyone that starts that difficult conversation is in the right. Biden just needs to stay on the sideline.

And “that” was in context to your third sentence.

 

What did you get on the AP Gov exam

Article 1, section 8 gives Congress more power than what is listed in black and white. In addition, article 5 (amendment clause) gives states the ability to blow the whole thing up and start again. Originalism is bullshit

 

Well, the anti-Federalists were not fans of the judiciary or Art. III. And then the Jeffersonian Republicans were very much not fans of the Federalist judiciary when they took over in 1801 and enacted a number of reforms aimed at putting the judiciary in its place. But that's getting into the weeds and away from the broader point.

The judiciary cannot enforce its own rulings. It relies on the other branches to do so. And the reason they abide by the judiciary's rulings is because they believe we will punish them if they don't. Without that threat of punishment, they can choose nonacquiescence. Lincoln did it during the Civil War with the pro-slavery Supreme Court.

Biden isn't a great messenger, but he's still President for now. Ultimately, Democrats will need to keep prosecuting this case beyond the 2024 election.

 

5 but did mention the amount of time between then and now for a reason.

 

He at least knows it will stir the pot of disgruntled Liberals.

 

I guess that is my biggest point. I’m a registered Republican that hasn’t actually voted for a Republican since Romney. I voted Gary Johnson in 2016. Then Biden. I didn’t want to debate someone with a JD regarding how each founding father felt on this as I assume constitutional law 101 could school my knowledge. Knew you could win in the weeds.

This immunity argument is probably up there in terms of what every American should really, really focus on. It’s a huge deal.

Second amendment. Abortion. Donations. Who knows what else this decision depends on, but I can’t think of anything more important in my lifetime.

It’s just being treated as politics as normal and so is an overhaul of the most important Court in the land. To that point, get it on the ballot (which is your point). Don’t let Biden champion that argument because of Title, accomplishments, loyalty, etc. etc. He simply can’t.

Nobody except for a small majority on this Board (and other people that follow politics very closely) will ever get to this level in the weeds.

This needs to be Obama level “Hope and Change” or Trump “Make America Great Again”.

If you want to radically overturn the highest court in the land, don’t mumble and make your strategy so very, very obvious because you continue to lose. Find a winning strategy.

 

Not if you match it up with their other searches.
It would have little benefit if that was the algorithm. My guess is more people googled the Trump Incident in 24 hours than googled the Truman incident ever.

I have seen other weird "anomalies" cited before too and when you do the same searches on DDG or even Yahoo you get different results.

I think DDG has the only true search engine going right now

 

Hey Tilly, type in "assassination attempt," hit enter, and then let me know what you see. Because all I saw were links about Donald Trump.

 

Sure. They havent white washed the internet. Like i said, I usually pushback on such claims.
But there are some questionable ones out there and this one is weird.

Especially when other engines dont do the same