Biden proposes SCOTUS changes

Dude, it's not the internet. It's Google. You're using its search engine. Google's algorithms determine what links to show you. So what's the conspiracy here?

 

I believe that the constitution says that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. So, go figure out what that means.

 

The ingenious part of Biden's proposal is that it doesn't force the members of SCOTUS out of office. Rather, it expands the Court and strips them of appellate jurisdiction, which Congress is allowed to do.

 

It’s an interesting proposal, but it can’t pass.

 

Can't pass ambitious things if you don't propose them.

 

"Dude" i never said it was a conspiracy.
It good be an error in the algorithm.

But that search result is goofy.

 

It is. But isn't it nice to learn something new about Harry Truman?

 

Yeah, but Google says he had his ear hit by John Hinkley Jr while watching a play on the grassy knoll.

That doesnt seem right.

 

AMEN

 

Ironically, the president has nothing to do with the process at all.

The worst kind, right?

That may have been true in 2002, but you have no choice now.

Google didn't build search engines, it destroyed them, taking taxpayer money and promising to never sort search results based on who was paying for it.

They got a monopoly in this way and then located to Bermuda and operate from there tax-free while they soak advertisers.

Searches were before then based on the World Wide Web, a free, organic, impartial, and open network of keywords that is all but dead now.

Corporate decisions protected by secrecy now control what shows up in search results, no matter what engine you choose.

 

I tried it last night after I saw that clown show in Fox telling us that social media was manipulating attention away from the assassination. Total hogwash!!!

 

Everyone who raised eyebrows when Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial picks saw it coming.

Democrats politicized the judiciary, frankly well before then, and are now upset that they cannot wield it in their favor… so they do what they always do… change the rules.

Institutions only have meaning and authority over Democrats when Democrats control them.

 

Incorrect algorithms? Plausible deniability...

 

You are consistent (and predictable). I'll give you that.

 

This is why I’m strongly in favor of the change. It gives balance for the good of the Country, not one particular party.

 

Had to look it up, but Oliver Wendell Homes was 90 when he retired from the Court.

 

Balance is only a realistic option when both sides agree to it.

The problem we have now is that neither side believes if the other had the power, they would opt for balance, and they may be correct. So typically (and I’m not saying this is you), the people preaching “balance” are the people who find themselves generally in opposition to a majority of justices on the Supreme Court.

The real answer is to require some supermajority of Senators to approve judges and justices. But because that genie is already out of the bottle, it’s going to be really tough to put it back in.

 

Not to answer on behalf of the other poster, but:

Consistent? Predictable? I guess, but haven't researched poster's prior comments to agree/disagree. What about the assertion that Dem's seek to change/subvert the "rules/system" when the "rules/system" don't lean their direction? Is that allegation consistent, predictable? Or correct? We all know that both/all sides will bemoan the "rules/system" when their goals are not achieved. The question is which side inevitably seeks to undermine/skirt the underlying Supreme Law (i.e., the Constitution) for a transformation without utilizing the very process of change afforded under the Constitution - the amendment process? Protecting democracy, indeed?