Democrats Hound Biden To Pack The Supreme Court, Establish Term Limits After More Decisions They Don’t Like

[1srelluc]

You somehow miss the GOP control of the House and the filibuster used on nearly everything in the Senate.

What "institutions are you referring to?

And the fact you are aware of that makes everything you and your ilk wish for a effort in futility.

 

[Lesh]

No it wasn't, that was the point. Get an amendment or stop crying like a little bitch.

It absolutely WAS a right. The fact that you approve of taking away that right notwhithstanding

1. Ending affirmative action​

• Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
• Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

Two cases could see the Supreme Court decide that colleges can no longer consider race as one of several factors when making admissions decisions, a move that would overturn four decades of precedent and deal a major blow to efforts to diversify college campuses and address historic inequality. Affirmative action has given a chance to those historically shut out of the system because of their race, ethnicity, income, or identity. Students of color remain underrepresented on many campuses; and in states that have eliminated affirmative action, public universities have seen dramatic declines in the number of minority students admitted.
Affirmative action helps promote diversity in ways that a focus on economic disparity alone cannot. Race-conscious remedies, including protections for voting rights and affirmative action, are supported by the Constitution. They have long been part of American history and are fundamental to equal opportunity.

2. Weakening the Voting Rights Act​

• Merrill v. Milligan

The Supreme Court has repeatedly diluted the Voting Rights Act over the past decade, and the latest case could open the door for states to further marginalize Black voters. Section 2 of the act requires voting districts to be drawn in a way that does not unfairly dilute the voting power of racial minorities. But last year, Alabama lawmakers drew a congressional map with only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state where 27 percent of the electorate is Black. That’s a textbook violation of the law, and a three-judge panel ordered the state to redraw the districts.
Now, the Supreme Court could reverse that decision, despite the fact that carving up Alabama’s Black Belt communities—historically Black areas in the state—to dilute Black voting power is exactly the kind of discriminatory impact the law was designed to prevent. Alabama’s radical claim that its map is race-neutral is just a subterfuge for discrimination. If the justices water down the meaning of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from taking race into account when drawing districts, it will render the law toothless and likely lead to fewer Black members in Congress.
The country has made incredible progress over the past six decades in making Congress more diverse. This year, 25 percent of congressional lawmakers are people of color—a record high—compared with 40 percent of the United States. A Congress that looks like America gives people the confidence that they have a true voice in government; and these lawmakers are more likely to address the needs of their constituents.

3. Giving businesses a license to discriminate​

• Creative LLC v. Elenis

The Supreme Court is considering whether businesses have a First Amendment right to refuse certain services to same-sex couples. The case involves a Colorado website design company owner who refused to design websites for same-sex marriages, citing her free speech rights. Lower courts found the owner violated state law that requires businesses to offer the same services to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
If the court sides with the website owner, businesses could wield so-called claims of free speech as a license to discriminate, undermining laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations. Such a ruling could open the door for businesses to use artistic freedom, among other claims, as an excuse to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other historically disadvantaged groups.
Businesses must operate under the framework of anti-discrimination laws and serve all customers equally, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Members of the LGBTQ community should be free to access goods and services with the same dignity and respect afforded to everyone.

4. Saddling students with debt​

• Biden v. Nebraska/U.S. Department of Education v. Brown

The court will decide whether the Biden administration had authority to forgive student loans for millions of borrowers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At issue in this case is the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, a 2003 law empowering the secretary of education to waive or modify student loan terms during emergencies. The administration’s plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, while 20 million could have their debt completely canceled.
Yet during oral arguments, conservatives on the court were skeptical that Congress issued a clear enough mandate for debt cancellation in the law. If the court rules against the Biden administration, it will take away a lifeline for millions of households crushed by student loan debt. Moreover, such a decision would prolong the student debt crisis and prevent millions of Americans from improving their financial security and creating a foundation for upward economic mobility.
The administration’s debt relief plan met the urgency of the moment, under the authority that Congress provided, to ensure that borrowers were not left financially worse off because of the pandemic.

5. Embracing the fringe independent state legislature theory​

• Moore v. Harper

The Supreme Court is considering whether to embrace the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which would allow state legislatures to set rules for federal elections and gerrymander districts without any judicial review by state courts. Advanced by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina and their allies, this theory could give partisan state lawmakers almost limitless power to manipulate federal election rules and draw unfair congressional districts. The ISL theory is so extreme that even prominent conservative analysts have called it a “constitutional travesty” and urged the justices to reject it.
Recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court reheard the underlying case after partisan control switched and reversed its previous decision. It is now possible the U.S. Supreme Court might dismiss the case without deciding the merits, although it could take up a similar case from Ohio that raises the same issues. In any case, the high court must reject this dangerous idea that would uproot democracy’s fundamental checks and balances and jeopardize free and fair elections.

 

[AsherN]

Agreed. Short & strict.

House, Senate, President. 6 years, one and done.

 

[Rogue AI]

It absolutely WAS a right. The fact that you approve of taking away that right notwhithstanding

1. Ending affirmative action​

• Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
• Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

Two cases could see the Supreme Court decide that colleges can no longer consider race as one of several factors when making admissions decisions, a move that would overturn four decades of precedent and deal a major blow to efforts to diversify college campuses and address historic inequality. Affirmative action has given a chance to those historically shut out of the system because of their race, ethnicity, income, or identity. Students of color remain underrepresented on many campuses; and in states that have eliminated affirmative action, public universities have seen dramatic declines in the number of minority students admitted.
Affirmative action helps promote diversity in ways that a focus on economic disparity alone cannot. Race-conscious remedies, including protections for voting rights and affirmative action, are supported by the Constitution. They have long been part of American history and are fundamental to equal opportunity.

2. Weakening the Voting Rights Act​

• Merrill v. Milligan

The Supreme Court has repeatedly diluted the Voting Rights Act over the past decade, and the latest case could open the door for states to further marginalize Black voters. Section 2 of the act requires voting districts to be drawn in a way that does not unfairly dilute the voting power of racial minorities. But last year, Alabama lawmakers drew a congressional map with only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state where 27 percent of the electorate is Black. That’s a textbook violation of the law, and a three-judge panel ordered the state to redraw the districts.
Now, the Supreme Court could reverse that decision, despite the fact that carving up Alabama’s Black Belt communities—historically Black areas in the state—to dilute Black voting power is exactly the kind of discriminatory impact the law was designed to prevent. Alabama’s radical claim that its map is race-neutral is just a subterfuge for discrimination. If the justices water down the meaning of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from taking race into account when drawing districts, it will render the law toothless and likely lead to fewer Black members in Congress.
The country has made incredible progress over the past six decades in making Congress more diverse. This year, 25 percent of congressional lawmakers are people of color—a record high—compared with 40 percent of the United States. A Congress that looks like America gives people the confidence that they have a true voice in government; and these lawmakers are more likely to address the needs of their constituents.

3. Giving businesses a license to discriminate​

• Creative LLC v. Elenis

The Supreme Court is considering whether businesses have a First Amendment right to refuse certain services to same-sex couples. The case involves a Colorado website design company owner who refused to design websites for same-sex marriages, citing her free speech rights. Lower courts found the owner violated state law that requires businesses to offer the same services to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
If the court sides with the website owner, businesses could wield so-called claims of free speech as a license to discriminate, undermining laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations. Such a ruling could open the door for businesses to use artistic freedom, among other claims, as an excuse to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other historically disadvantaged groups.
Businesses must operate under the framework of anti-discrimination laws and serve all customers equally, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Members of the LGBTQ community should be free to access goods and services with the same dignity and respect afforded to everyone.

4. Saddling students with debt​

• Biden v. Nebraska/U.S. Department of Education v. Brown

The court will decide whether the Biden administration had authority to forgive student loans for millions of borrowers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At issue in this case is the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, a 2003 law empowering the secretary of education to waive or modify student loan terms during emergencies. The administration’s plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, while 20 million could have their debt completely canceled.
Yet during oral arguments, conservatives on the court were skeptical that Congress issued a clear enough mandate for debt cancellation in the law. If the court rules against the Biden administration, it will take away a lifeline for millions of households crushed by student loan debt. Moreover, such a decision would prolong the student debt crisis and prevent millions of Americans from improving their financial security and creating a foundation for upward economic mobility.
The administration’s debt relief plan met the urgency of the moment, under the authority that Congress provided, to ensure that borrowers were not left financially worse off because of the pandemic.

5. Embracing the fringe independent state legislature theory​

• Moore v. Harper

The Supreme Court is considering whether to embrace the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which would allow state legislatures to set rules for federal elections and gerrymander districts without any judicial review by state courts. Advanced by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina and their allies, this theory could give partisan state lawmakers almost limitless power to manipulate federal election rules and draw unfair congressional districts. The ISL theory is so extreme that even prominent conservative analysts have called it a “constitutional travesty” and urged the justices to reject it.
Recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court reheard the underlying case after partisan control switched and reversed its previous decision. It is now possible the U.S. Supreme Court might dismiss the case without deciding the merits, although it could take up a similar case from Ohio that raises the same issues. In any case, the high court must reject this dangerous idea that would uproot democracy’s fundamental checks and balances and jeopardize free and fair elections.

You are too stupid to distinguish between legislative privileges and actual rights. That lack of core understanding is what makes you people dangerously stupid. You assume you have 'rights' that don't even exist and feel offended because your stupidity is shoved back in your face by the Constitution itself.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am not sure adjusting the size of SCOTUS is the right way to go.

We do need thirty-year limits with full highest Civil Service retirements possible.

 

[gipper]

That's a rather absurd statement

But he got straight from MSNBC.

 

[westwall]

Wait, I know a better plan!

Once a congress-critter reaches a net worth of 5 million over what they were worth when they first obtained office they will not be eligible for re-election.

I'm a fuckin' genius!

All that does is make them hide their ill gotten gains better.

 

[Blaster]

Republicans used every means possible to build this activist right wing Court.

They have ruled against decades of progress...removed rights for the first time ever in the SC.

Yes...it's time to expand the Court

Go cry to your mommy.

 

[Rawley]

Go cry to your mommy.

They've convinced the weak minded that packing the Court will make a difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Throughout the most of the 20th century the court system was used by the left to push through what were unpopular agendas at their time that they could never get done through Congress. Yet, at no point, when their agenda was being forced on the country via judicial fiat did they call the courts illegitimate, did they demand increasing the size and packing the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges, or adding term limits. In fact, they only time they did this was when they didn't get their way. FDR was famous for bullying the courts. He threatened the Court regularly, especially after striking down his New Deal package. He went so far as to advocate for a mandatory retirement age which would result in new court appointments he would be able to make, but even members of his own party were too skittish to move forward with that. His threats were enough, however, to get Justice Owen Roberts to flip his initial rulings and side with the leftists on the court to allow these new programs through.

Probably, the most egregious case of judicial activism was in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided by the Berger Court, completely fabricated a right to privacy, that never existed in the 14th Amendment, so that they could push their own will on the American people. Many people, including abortion activists, were upset with how this decision was derived, but again, no demands for court packing by the Democratic Party. This has been followed by plenty of other poorly made decisions over the years, such as Kelo v New London and the upholding of ObamaCare, both of which greatly expanded the role of government. Yet again, no demands for changes to the court by the Democratic Party.

Fast forward to a point when a more conservative court is now shifting back towards originalism and the left is up to their old antics again, screeching about their legitimacy, warning us about how the Court is a "threat" to democracy. The Supreme Court only seems to be a threat to the American way of life when the left doesn't get their way. Congressman Ro Khanna seems to be taking a page from FDR in advising that Biden run for reelection by adding SCOTUS term limits to his platform.



The danger in this, of course, is that this will kick off a permanent politicization (moreso than it already is) of the Court for years, even decades, to come. We're already seeing this initial creep with the presidential impeachment process. There is another problem with Khanna's comments. It's not the job of SCOTUS to have "understanding of modern American life." Their job is to enforce the Constitution as written. We have an amendment process to keep up with the changing times, but it's rarely used. Instead, the courts have been hijacked over the years with activist jurists to fast track policy changes the public aren't necessarily ready for and we've seen the result of that. Every election year of my life and every federal high court appointment has been a bloody fight between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. This could have been avoided if the Berger court had simply done their job, ruled against Roe and said this was a job for Congress, not the courts, and let things play out over time. We shouldn't have a politicized court. If the justices on the Court are doing their jobs we should have more 9-0 decisions and less 5-4. Judges who can't understand their role, shouldn't be there.

I don't see the problem. Is there supposed to be a problem, here?

 

[Mac1958]

House, Senate, President. 6 years, one and done.

Imagine how their behaviors would change if they weren't constantly campaigning, posing and bending over for donors.

Take away their negative motivations and you change behaviors.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

These rulings reveal a white privilege SCOTUS.

 

[MarathonMike]

You somehow miss the GOP control of the House and the filibuster used on nearly everything in the Senate.

What "institutions are you referring to?

The White House, The Senate, The DOJ, The FBI, The Media both TV and Social, public education, colleges.....

 

[MarathonMike]

Imagine how their behaviors would change if they weren't constantly campaigning, posing and bending over for donors.

Take away their negative motivations and you change behaviors.

Sounds great to me! So how does that happen when the lawmakers would have to impose term limits on themselves?

 

[Mac1958]

Sounds great to me! So how does that happen when the lawmakers would have to impose term limits on themselves?

The only way it can be done is if enough are elected who are willing to do it.

Not holding my breath. Meanwhile, the decay continues.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The White House, The Senate, The DOJ, The FBI, The Media both TV and Social, public education, colleges.....

That's pretty insane. You should take a step back and think about how insane and whiny you sound.

 

[MarathonMike]

The only way it can be done is if enough are elected who are willing to do it.

Not holding my breath. Meanwhile, the decay continues.

Exactly, there aren't enough honorable politicians in either party to impose limits on themselves.

 

[MarathonMike]

That's pretty insane. You should take a step back and think about how insane and whiny you sound.

Sane and accurate. But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sane and accurate. But you are entitled to your opinion.

No. Paranoid, insane nuttery. Nothing but excuses for republican criminals.

You would accuse the entire world of being corrupt criminals to shield a republican. Same shit all day every day, here on the right wing dumpster fire message board.

 

[skews13]

Insurrectionists!!!!!