Now that the court ruled the president has immunity from everything and can even have those he disagrees with eliminated by Seal team Six, Biden should immediately begin using that and get Thomas and Alito off the court since they are crooked.
Oh, pshaw. Trivialities!Doesn’t need an amendment to constitution ?
This is just a special form of ignorance here.Now that the court ruled the president has immunity from everything and can even have those he disagrees with eliminated by Seal team Six, Biden should immediately begin using that and get Thomas and Alito off the court since they are crooked.
Every post you make proves you are an expert in ignorance and stupidity.This is just a special form of ignorance here.
Now that the court ruled the president has immunity from everything and can even have those he disagrees with eliminated by Seal team Six, Biden should immediately begin using that and get Thomas and Alito off the court since they are crooked.
They didn't pull off anything. Lucky.I’m for every POTUS getting to add 5. However only 9 get to hear cases and it’s random so plaintiffs won’t know if they’re getting majority libs or cons. I don’t care if there’s 50 justices. What the Republicans have pulled off - thanks Mitch - has effed us for decades.
Isn't this the sort of reason we'd tear into republicans for?The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
That's fairly pathetic. Change the rules because it's not going your way?
I agree with a code of ethics and limiting terms. As good moves going forward for all.
Time for lots of things in government to change for the good of the country.Ahh you are so cute with your novice understanding of how the SCOTUS has changed over the years and is time for it to change once again.
Oh - you mean an expert in recognizing it in others?Every post you make proves you are an expert in ignorance and stupidity.
Laughable response. The SCOTUS is proving itself incapable. of self regulation. The hubris of several justices is undeniable. This would be an issue no matter what. Common sense course correction is needed. Team Red won't do it because they are getting the wins they want.That’s not what this is about. If there was a D majority it wouldn’t be an issue.
Chuck Grassley isn't.Time for lots of things in government to change for the good of the country.
Age limits for all three branches…term limits…
You in?
You are a foolLaughable response. The SCOTUS is proving itself incapable. of self regulation. The hubris of several justices is undeniable. This would be an issue no matter what. Common sense course correction is needed. Team Red won't do it because they are getting the wins they want.
In a non election year this would probably have bi-partisan support. People are fed up with justices taking $4 million dollars and lying that it doesn't affect their opinions.
Please little baby jesus go for this…President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Follow Election 2024
“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.
Many if not all of the changes would probably need congressional approval. The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...itid=mc_magnet-sc-ethics_inline_collection_18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...itid=mc_magnet-sc-ethics_inline_collection_19
Biden’s private remarks about his high court plans came more than two weeks after his wobbly, confused performance at a June 27 debate with Donald Trump, which prompted calls from some Democrats for him to step aside as the party’s presidential nominee. Among those who have rallied to his side are many liberals who strongly support calls to remake the court.
Four days after that debate, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts during his first term in office. Less than an hour later, Biden called Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, to discuss the ruling and the arguments for and against reforming the court.
“This decision today has continued the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose, to today’s decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation,” Biden said in public remarks later that day.
The next week, Biden called Tribe again and the two discussed a Guardian opinion piece he wrote endorsing reforms to the Supreme Court. Among the options they discussed: term limits, an enforceable ethics code and the constitutional amendment to address presidential immunity.
Tribe confirmed that he spoke with Biden but declined to comment about their discussion.
During the 2020 presidential race, Biden rebuffed calls from liberals who advocated expanding the court but promised he would create a commission to study potential changes. He followed through on that promise after being elected, and the commission issued a 294-page report to the president. Biden has not acted on the commission’s report since they approved it in December 2021.
Approval ratings of the Supreme Court have dropped precipitously in recent years, and Biden finds himself trying to resuscitate a flagging presidential campaign after the politically disastrous debate.
Skip to end of carousel
Supreme Court 2024 major cases
End of carousel
Since he was elected, the Supreme Court has veered sharply to the right — overturning Roe v. Wade, ended affirmative action in college admissions, weakening federal agencies’ power by overturning a 40-year decision and striking down Biden’s student-loan forgiveness program. Biden condemned the court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity, arguing on July 1 that it should motivate Americans to vote for his reelection.
“Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden said in a White House address. “With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.”
Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.
The legislation was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), but it has been co-sponsored by Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
Yes, that is the most likely path.Doesn’t need an amendment to constitution ?
Probably not, voter pandering due to decisions not liked. Both sides really don't like the Supreme Court when decisions go against themSo would Biden be pushing term limits if the Supreme Court was 9-0 Democrats?
No, it was about the political gamesmanship that McConnell pulled. It was absolutely atrocious what he did. If that didn't happen I would be upset with current court rulings but accept them. Same way I am when I president I don't want gets into office.That’s not what this is about. If there was a D majority it wouldn’t be an issue.
Sure JanLaughable response. The SCOTUS is proving itself incapable. of self regulation. The hubris of several justices is undeniable. This would be an issue no matter what. Common sense course correction is needed. Team Red won't do it because they are getting the wins they want.
In a non election year this would probably have bi-partisan support. People are fed up with justices taking $4 million dollars and lying that it doesn't affect their opinions.
Not gamesmanship. Checks and balancesNo, it was about the political gamesmanship that McConnell pulled. It was absolutely atrocious what he did. If that didn't happen I would be upset with current court rulings but accept them. Same way I am when I president I don't want gets into office.
There hasn't been a Democrat majority on the court since 1986 despite them only losing the popular vote twice in that time and one of those times was after Bush Jr lost the popular vote the first time but won the electoral college. That is ridiculous to me and should be ridiculous to you as well.Because we gotta get more liberal justices!!!
OkThere hasn't been a Democrat majority on the court since 1986 despite them only losing the popular vote twice in that time and one of those times was after Bush Jr lost the popular vote the first time but won the electoral college. That is ridiculous to me and should be ridiculous to you as well.
And I think dems should do whatever they can to unpack the court as that is what has happened. If it wasn't for the rat****ing McConnell pulled I would have a lot less to say about the Supreme Court.
Involving a book publisher??????I think you’re forgetting a couple people…
2 Supreme Court justices did not recuse themselves in cases involving their book publisher | CNN Politics
Two Supreme Court justices did not recuse themselves from cases that came before the court over the past decade involving a publishing company that’s paid them in lucrative book deals.amp.cnn.com
Don't be so stupid.
It seems that you have lost any semblance of justifiable reason.This is just a special form of ignorance here.
The link is in the post and it’s cnn.Involving a book publisher??????
Very serious charges here!!!!!!!
Link?
LOLOLOLOLOL
Maybe it's time we looked into some RV charges?
You can't be serious!
smh&jfc!
Quit using your ladies account we all she isEvery post you make proves you are an expert in ignorance and stupidity.
Makes sense.Quit using your ladies account we all she is
I'm glad you made sense of it, because I am still lostMakes sense.
Are you even trying to be serious here?The link is in the post and it’s cnn.
No one granted them too much power.I think we've granted too much executive and legislative power to the Supreme Court. The scope of their rulings on Court cases should be limited to those cases and future cases should be decided on their own merit, not what a partisan panel decided in some cases decades prior. Times change, society changes, views evolve...But we are supposed to honor a ruling from 1880 because of stare decisis?
I'd like to see the Supreme Court get out if taking cases and simply decide if federal laws are constitutional.
They wouldn't have much to do, but that's okay, the only power they would wield is to decide if things like an individual mandate for health insurance is legal.
There would still be each state's supreme court for deciding cases based in their state's constitution.
You asked for a link.Are you even trying to be serious here?
So...from the link.Involving a book publisher??????
Very serious charges here!!!!!!!
Link?
LOLOLOLOLOL
Maybe it's time we looked into some RV charges?
You can't be serious!
smh&jfc!
They're granted the power we give to them, and 9 un-elected people shouldn't be deciding the things they do for 330 Million.No one granted them too much power.
They just took it!
Impeach them.
Absolutely. Should not have senators and HoR staying for decades. Let's go.Time for lots of things in government to change for the good of the country.
Age limits for all three branches…term limits…
You in?