So how much laughter does this evoke from Congress?
- Thread starter Rifler
- Start date
I’d leave the term limits issue for another day.
Getting a more robust ethics and disclosure code into place would go a long way towards restoring the Supreme Court’s reputation and credibility. That should be the first step, and not sure anyone but Clarence Thomas would object.
Getting a more robust ethics and disclosure code into place would go a long way towards restoring the Supreme Court’s reputation and credibility. That should be the first step, and not sure anyone but Clarence Thomas would object.
A grandfather clause, also called a “legacy clause,” is an exemption that allows persons or entities to continue with activities or operations that were approved before the implementation of new rules, regulations, or laws. Such allowances can be permanent, temporary, or instituted with limits.
I think this would be good,.. provided this was developed, imposed, and monitored by SCOTUS itself...
Why? That’s the problem. They keep saying “We’ll handle it” but they aren’t. I don’t know what the answer is, but Thomas taking millions in gifts and playing fast and loose with disclosures isn’t good enough.
I understand the concept. Why would you support that?
Monitor internally by the SCOTUS? JFC.
WTF? You live in dumbfvck land. They went through this process. and Thomas's grifting went on grifting.
What in the hell is wrong with you conservatives?
Yeah, that’s totally the same as accepting bribes and whoring decisions to Conservative donors that wine and dine you on expensive vacations. You’re so good at whataboutisms, Northern!
Trump's biggest legacy will be the corruption of SCOTUS.
AINEC
AINEC
They don't "keep saying" anything on this topic, because it's a relatively recent issue,.. My concern is that if this comes from outside the court, it won't be accepted by the public and the SCOTUS will be forever damaged...
I have no problem with the term limits moving forward. If they implemented it now for current members it instantly reshapes the court...which is most likely the objective.
Good point. But why not start the year count for current members. Pass the law, year one starts for everyone. That way a younger judge appointed last year won't be able to serve 40 years on the bench.
SCOTUS exists to support the US constitution,.. It's not a popularity contest.
Two different things,.. If Congress starts to manipulate SCOTUS, why would voters trust this openly politicized version of the court to fairly interpret the US Constitution?,.. I can trust an unfettered court to render fair decisions, even if I disagree with those decisions.
Neato.
How the hell is that any different than other people not trusting the court as it stands right now(sans oversight)?
More specifically, why are your concerns more valid than those you've dismissed?
The current court has been assembled without any special congressional manipulations, hence I can view it as being as trustworthy as any past court,... Allowing Congress to continuously play cook with the makeup of SCOTUS will put every future decision into question...
You know how the game is played,.. Nominations are made by the executive branch and approvals are rendered by the Senate. Since President and Senate are populated by voter choice, makeup of SCOTUS will vary somewhat as a reflection of current voter trends,.. This arrangement has long been considered fair and reasonable...
Representatives have to run for reelection every two years. And are elected directly by the people who represent them. Supreme Court justices are neither elected nor face any regular renewal. The two bear no resemblance to each other and there is no reason to connect the two.
So you realize your statement that the court has "been assembled without any special congressional manipulations" is complete nonsense. Good. That's a start.
If Congress can approve a Justice why shouldn't they be able to judge their adhereance to ethics standards or establish a reasonable term limit?
I think he grasps. The difference between being able to fulfill his duties for a few more months versus winning an election are clear and have been explained multiple times. He is one of the posters who clings to the notion that pretending to be stupid is a winning argument.
Don't forget that they are now free to withhold their advice and consent when politically expedient.
I fully expect the default reactionary "they started it" response to this.
He grasps a lot and then clings desperately when it's demonstrated how foolish he is being.
His position on Biden is like expecting someone who announces their retirement for the end of the year needing to be fired immediately. Just dumb.
Current voter trends? Thomas was placed on the Supreme Court 33 years ago. Since that time the GOP has won the most votes in the a presidential election…once. Yet six of the current justices were nominated by Republican voters.
The makeup is neither current, not reflective of voter’s desires.
Because these congressional authorities don't currently exist,.. In regards to SCOTUS term limits I think Congress could better sell this idea if they were to first impose it upon themselves...
