Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes

[Aardvark86]

Perfectly fair to make these proposals. Good luck getting them adopted via legislation or constitutional amendment.

In other words, garden variety electioneering. I assume the campaign staff are having a harder time figuring out how to run against trumps negatives in an impactful way, so they figured they’d try something new.

 

[Firekirknow]

Should be selected bipartisan. These fools are anything but. Supreme Court is a joke and it undermines the judicial system. Lying under oath come on it’s lost its way.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Should be selected bipartisan. These fools are anything but. Supreme Court is a joke and it undermines the judicial system. Lying under oath come on it’s lost its way.

Maybe they shouldn't be appointed but there should be some kind of grading system for judges and when a spot opens up on the SC the highest graded judge based on bi-partisan criteria gets inserted.

I'm not a legal expert, but I would think they could be graded on % of appealed rulings upheld, % of cases appealed, etc. Every judge should have a QA score.

 

[Aardvark86]

Maybe they shouldn't be appointed but there should be some kind of grading system for judges and when a spot opens up on the SC the highest graded judge based on bi-partisan criteria gets inserted.

I'm not a legal expert, but I would think they could be graded on % of appealed rulings upheld, % of cases appealed, etc. Every judge should have a QA score.

At the end of the day, somebody's going to have to do the grading, and judges disagree and have personal rivalries and egos which don't really allow for that sort of objective metric. It's like the old story about the US district judge in Philly who got elevated to the Third Circuit. One of his colleagues on the ED Pa district court quipped "Simultaneously raised the quality of both benches."

 

[franklinman]

Well, it occasionally was, but pre MAGA judges there was still a sense of shame about being caught taking bribes. Now they roll around in their corruption like pigs in mud.

Its about time big changes are made, go for it.

 

[KFsdisciple]

At the end of the day, somebody's going to have to do the grading, and judges disagree and have personal rivalries and egos which don't really allow for that sort of objective metric. It's like the old story about the US district judge in Philly who got elevated to the Third Circuit. One of his colleagues on the ED Pa district court quipped "Simultaneously raised the quality of both benches."

That's why I was trying to come up with statistical data that can't be influenced by politics. If a judge's rulings are upheld on appeal xx% of the time, that would lead one to believe they're doing a good job. I'm sure there's other things that could be measured.

 

[goldmom]

You asked for a link.


So...from the link.

CNN —
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.

In two separate copyright infringement cases concerning the publishing conglomerate Penguin Random House, the high court declined to take up the appeals, with the court saying in 2013 that it wouldn’t hear the first case, and the second case being turned away from the court in 2019 and again in 2020. In both cases, the publisher won at the lower court level, and those decisions stood.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.

You ok with that?

It’s another exhibition of a giant temper tantrum by the left, and a ploy by the proggies controlling our current POTUS to please the base.
I’m not opposed to the “Management “ giving themselves a retirement age when they need to make a graceful exit and that applies for all three branches. But changing the core makeup of one of our branches of government is fraught with danger.
And it should be an enormous hill to climb.

 

[goldmom]

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.

Neither should 100 Senators. Ready to address that?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Wouldn't term limits require a change to the constitution which we all know is not happening?

I would love to see it but it's not going to happen.

Quite frankly we're screwed as a country. Because the changes we need to see made in this country, and they are legion are politically impossible. The framers made the constitution nearly impossible to amend unless there is almost universal support for the change. And when the constitution benefits a group, even a relatively small group over the rest of the people it is impossible to change.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Neither should 100 Senators. Ready to address that?

Well, at least they are elected by the people to represent them unlike the justices, and they have checks and balances including the hundreds of elected representatives, the executive branch and the judicial branch.

 

[goldmom]

Well, at least they are elected by the people to represent them unlike the justices, and they have checks and balances including the hundreds of elected representatives, the executive branch and the judicial branch.

And they still have managed to screw things up.

 

[abby97]

Restoring faith in the Supreme Court through sensible changes should be a primary goal of all those who support the USA. What's transpired of late is simply not good enough for our country.

It's weird that this issue was never brought up in the 50 years prior when there was a left leaning court. It is almost as if the left is fine with anything a justice might do as long as he/she votes like a leftist. If the court is conservative and tries to actually follow the constitution, then changes need to be made according to the left.

 

[goldmom]

Wouldn't term limits require a change to the constitution which we all know is not happening?

I would love to see it but it's not going to happen.

Quite frankly we're screwed as a country. Because the changes we need to see made in this country, and they are legion are politically impossible. The framers made the constitution nearly impossible to amend unless there is almost universal support for the change. And when the constitution benefits a group, even a relatively small group over the rest of the people it is impossible to change.

Not if we’re more involved and stop sending the same incompetent people back to DC.

 

[MikeyHawk]

Wouldn't term limits require a change to the constitution which we all know is not happening?

I would love to see it but it's not going to happen.

Quite frankly we're screwed as a country. Because the changes we need to see made in this country, and they are legion are politically impossible. The framers made the constitution nearly impossible to amend unless there is almost universal support for the change. And when the constitution benefits a group, even a relatively small group over the rest of the people it is impossible to change.

That is kind of the point of the constitution, if it is an obvious change it can be done. Discourages big changes back and forth as leadership changes.
What is an example of changes the country needs to make being impacted by the Supreme Court?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That is kind of the point of the constitution, if it is an obvious change it can be done. Discourages big changes back and forth as leadership changes.
What is an example of changes the country needs to make being impacted by the Supreme Court?

Other countries have constitutions that can change easier but don't constantly change every time a new party takes over. They usually do it by referendum. Our states do the same things.

In terms of the constitution I think we need to scrap most of it. Maybe use it as a template for the structures of our federal government but that's it.

First of all we need proportional representation in the lower house (Which also needs to be much larger in size). The upper house needs to have it's powers reduced dramatically. It's powers should be reduced to confirming judges/cabinet positions, confirming military officers, and confirming treaties and the like. It should have no power over the purse or most domestic legislation. All confirmations must receive a vote within 90 days. No games where leadership runs out the clock on confirmations til they get someone else they like better in power. Upper house should be elected via ranked choice voting.

Second for the executive we need popular vote ranked choice voting.

For the judicial branch we need 18 year terms for all federal judges including the SCOTUS.

The constitution should be changed via a referendum in which you need a 60% of the vote to make the changes.

A huge part of our problem is the 2 party system which absolutely needs to be broken. Because there are individual issues out there which poll overwhelmingly towards one direction but because of the 2 party system and everyone having to pick between the lesser of 2 evils nothing ever gets done.

 

[Aardvark86]

That's why I was trying to come up with statistical data that can't be influenced by politics. If a judge's rulings are upheld on appeal xx% of the time, that would lead one to believe they're doing a good job. I'm sure there's other things that could be measured.

i get that it would be nice to have a 'relegation' type mechanism like in european soccer, but if you dig into it from a stats perspective, there's just a huge amount of statistical noise potential in the data that meaningful difference strike me as a huge stretch. Remember - while most of the cases that people get excorcised about are civil cases, the overwhelming portion of the federal court docket is criminal. And of course, consider the exceedingly high number of "decent" meritorious cases for hwich cert doesn't get granted for a variety of prudential and proedural reasons. it's sort of like disparate impact data - it's not simply race stratification, it's also qualification and actual interest.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Not if we’re more involved and stop sending the same incompetent people back to DC.

The reason the same incompetent people get sent back to DC is because our electoral system promotes only 2 viable candidates. And those 2 viable candidates are increasingly chosen by extremists. If we want better people in DC we need to dump that shit yesterday.

This is also the reason why the R's and D's spend much more time running against the other party than they spend promoting their own vision. Because you don't have to like their vision, they don't care if you don't like their vision. Only thing they care about is if they can convince you that the other vision is worse than their vision.

If you have 6 to 8 visions to chose from it's a lot harder to convince everyone that the other 7 visions are all worse than yours. Then you have to start running on your own vision.

 

[TheCainer]

You asked for a link.


So...from the link.

CNN —
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.

In two separate copyright infringement cases concerning the publishing conglomerate Penguin Random House, the high court declined to take up the appeals, with the court saying in 2013 that it wouldn’t hear the first case, and the second case being turned away from the court in 2019 and again in 2020. In both cases, the publisher won at the lower court level, and those decisions stood.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.

You ok with that?

Sotomayor and Gorsuch are the least of our concerns.

If they are in trouble, get rid of them. Thomas and Alito, however, are long past the need to be terminated.

Do you understand this, or are you going to deflect further?

The ballad of Clarence Thomas and ‘incorruptibility’​

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384991-the-ballad-of-clarence-thomas-and-incorruptibility/

 

[WadeLookingbill]

It's weird that this issue was never brought up in the 50 years prior when there was a left leaning court. It is almost as if the left is fine with anything a justice might do as long as he/she votes like a leftist. If the court is conservative and tries to actually follow the constitution, then changes need to be made according to the left.

Which issue? Accurate disclosures, conflict checks, and impartiality should always be paramount to maintaining trust in the Supreme Court. Trust in the judiciary is at all-time lows and the highest court is significantly contributing to that.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Which issue? Accurate disclosures, conflict checks, and impartiality should always be paramount to maintaining trust in the Supreme Court. Trust in the judiciary is at all-time lows and the highest court is significantly contributing to that.

Yeah, I don’t mind they vote one way or the other.

I don’t like the secrecy and lack of transparency over finances and conflicts. It’s been very disappointing.

 

[Ghee Buttersnaps]

Not saying I'm against the changes, but I wonder if these would be announced if the court was comprised of a liberal majority.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Sotomayor and Gorsuch are the least of our concerns.

If they are in trouble, get rid of them. Thomas and Alito, however, are long past the need to be terminated.

Do you understand this, or are you going to deflect further?

The ballad of Clarence Thomas and ‘incorruptibility’​

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384991-the-ballad-of-clarence-thomas-and-incorruptibility/

ok

 

[Urohawk]

Not saying I'm against the changes, but I wonder if these would be announced if the court was comprised of a liberal majority.

Liberals would tolerate a conservative court but not like it. What we won't tolerate is McConnell manipulating the system to keep Garland from getting a vote and then ramming Comey Barrett down our throats.

 

[Aardvark86]

Liberals would tolerate a conservative court but not like it. What we won't tolerate is McConnell manipulating the system to keep Garland from getting a vote and then ramming Comey Barrett down our throats.

Funnily enough, McConnell was not majority leader when the two most often named bugaboos were confirmed. Equally funnily, when the later of the two bugaboos was confirmed, a young Senator named Barack Obama reluctantly agreed to participate in an ill-fated filibuster attempt, which he later expressed regret for due to its deleterious long term effects on the judicial confirmation process. I do sort of like the long term effects of irony, notwithstanding my discomfort with the undeniable, and yet not necessarily intrinsically bad, reality of the bare-knuckle constitutional politics that has applied.

Institutional reforms are really fair game for discussion on their merits, but "because we lost the politics" is not typically a good rationale for institutional reform.

 

[CRazzle]

 

[Aardvark86]

View embedded media

Certainly expected, and he should win.

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[KFsdisciple]

View embedded media

Way more important to have term limits on congress.

 

[WDSMHAWK]

Way more important to have term limits on congress.

Congress should have term limits but they can also be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are basically untouchable.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Congress should have term limits but they can also be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are basically untouchable.

President can be voted out too, but he's term limited.

 

[Rose bowl or bust]

Congress should have term limits but they can also be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are basically untouchable.

There is a reason that the Justices aren't voted out. When making an unpopular ruling, such as rulings about women's suffarage and civil rights issues of the 60's, they need not worry about the popularity of their vote, but only the constitutionality of it. If they needed to pander to the public to make sure they were able to be reelected, it MAY cause them to rule in an unconstitutional manner.

 

[Speedway1]

If it was a D majority. They’d push even harder to get him out or at least curb him. Chief Justice Garland wouldn’t go naughty boy like Chief Justice Robert’s does.

We dodged a bullet by Garland not being on the SCOTUS. He is worthless and a servant of the ultra left.

 

[Rifler]

We dodged a bullet by Garland not being on the SCOTUS. He is worthless and a servant of the ultra left.

Yep,.. totally dodged a bullet.

 

[Kelsers]

We dodged a bullet by Garland not being on the SCOTUS. He is worthless and a servant of the ultra left.

Why? He would have leveled the Court is all.

 

[TheCainer]

We dodged a bullet by Garland not being on the SCOTUS. He is worthless and a servant of the ultra left.

Yeah I imagine George Soros sends him a check every week, not that there should be any problem with that given what Thomas and Alito have gotten away with.

It seems to be the new norm.

 

[Tom Paris]

Because we gotta get more liberal justices!!!

I’d prefer justices that aren’t bought and perjure themselves in front of the Senate with zero consequences. I say this as someone who has generally preferred conservative judges…until they did what they did with Roe. Not to mention McConnell stole a judge from the Democrats and hypocritically shoved one through that helped overturn Roe.

Like I have said, I think each president should get 5 justices each.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I’d prefer justices that aren’t bought and perjure themselves in front of the Senate with zero consequences. I say this as someone who has generally preferred conservative judges…until they did what they did with Roe. Not to mention McConnell stole a judge from the Democrats and hypocritically shoved one through that helped overturn Roe.

Like I have said, I think each president should get 5 justices each.

Fair enough.

 

[Tom Paris]

What else is he going to wake up from a 3 year coma on? Yesterday it was rent, today it’s the Supreme Court, is tomorrow going to be food prices? Car insurance rates? Homeowners insurance?

Food prices were already brought up by a Republican congresswoman on the floor WHEN BIDEN WAS TRYING TO LOWER THE COST OF INSULIN and this stupid bitch reminded me Republicans DO NOT CARE about lowering prices as she said, “What costs are he going to regulate next…food??” At least Democrats attempt to lower costs for everyday Americans. Republicans fight that tooth and nail.

 

[RileyHawk]

It’s another exhibition of a giant temper tantrum by the left, and a ploy by the proggies controlling our current POTUS to please the base.
I’m not opposed to the “Management “ giving themselves a retirement age when they need to make a graceful exit and that applies for all three branches. But changing the core makeup of one of our branches of government is fraught with danger.
And it should be an enormous hill to climb.

Why? Why should it be an "enormous hill to climb" to institute an ethics code and a retirement age?