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

[Billiejeens]

And besides, O rolled over. He did nothing to combat McConnell or fight for Garland. He either was too tired or knew he’d get nowhere.

Nothing within the law he could do.

 

[themirrorthief]

Nothing within the law he could do.

if you want to get rid of silly democrats, just put them in charge of something for a short while....see california

 

[basquebromance]

The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court

 

[IM2]

They won elections.. like your big eared POTUS said.... elections have consequences

Wrong. At least 2 justices were rushed in during elections and Gorsuch is there because McConnell refused to let an Obama nominee be heard before the senate. All of this is the result of right wing corruption and Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett need to be removed.

 

[IM2]

Feel free to amend the US Constitution if you don't like court rulings based on the Constitution.

This court was created by unconstitutional means McConnell efused to allow a president his costitutional right to nominate a judge, then he rushed another in during an election that a republican eventually lost. Both those seats woulld have stopped what we see nnow..

 

[candycorn]

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.

This is one topic where I would think that the powers that be, the states, and most of the public could get behind a constitutional amendment to set the number of justices at 9 and leave it there.

At the same time, however, the amendment should force the Senate to have a nomination hearing on SCOTUS (or other federal court) nominees within 90 days. We shouldn't have vacant seats on the federal court for more than 90 days.

 

[MinTrut]

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.

This has nothing to do with the left.

The court swings between serving liberals (aka conservatives who hate conservatives) and serving (outright) conservatives.

While you share some good points, calling liberals the left undercuts credibility.

 

[toobfreak]

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

What is "activist" about taking a case brought to you and ruling on it based on the founding laws, principle documents and intentions this nation was created on?

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

Elections have consequences. Arbitrarily altering the Constitution because entitled Democrats don’t get their way is not how things get done in a America…. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the fundamental transformation of America to a banana republic.

 

[22lcidw]

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?

Again...there are men wearing dresses shoving their private parts in front of children in some of our public schools. With Prog women on the school boards like many in politics who are of the Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[gipper]

Nothing within the law he could do.

Yes of course, but he had the bully pulpit and a loving press. He could have put a lot of pressure on old Mitch. He didn’t.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Packing the court, no. We'll end up with 151 fucking justices.

Term limits? Sure. No one deserves a lifetime appointment.

Probably a certain age.
Unfortunately you can't count on a judge to recuse themselves and retire.
Ginsberg stayed at least 5 years too long.

Having said that - we need to install term limits on the Senate and Congress first.
Then worry about the SCOTUS.

 

[Lesh]

Elections have consequences. Arbitrarily altering the Constitution because entitled Democrats don’t get their way is not how things get done in a America…. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the fundamental transformation of America to a banana republic.

WTF are you talking about?

Expanding the Court does not violate the Constitution in any way

Nor does instituting real ethics rules

 

[gipper]

WTF are you talking about?

Expanding the Court does not violate the Constitution in any way

Nor does instituting real ethics rules

Allowing an old corrupt fool the power of picking all those new judges for the expansion, is unethical.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't agree with this.

However, I do agree with term limiting SCOTUS Justices. I think this is the only nation in the Western world that allows its Justices to serve until death.

I think each Justice should be appointed to an 18 year-term, with all terms staggered two years apart so that a new Justice is picked every two years.

Here's my version of the same basic principle.

I think we can make the SCOTUS less political by changing the lifetime tenure provision. If Justices were required to rotate out of the court, then there is less possibility of a justice "hanging on" until they get the Presidential/Senate combination they feel more aligned with for political reasons. If vacancies were to occur on a more regular basis it would be a more routine process.

I'm not so much in favor of an upper age limit though as it will then become the ploy to just nominate younger and younger individuals to be on the SCOTUS so they can be there longer. I'm more in favor of limiting the number of years of SCOTUS service.

So...

^

Amend the US Constitution concerning SCOTUS tenure.

1. The senior Justice with 20 years of service on the SCOTUS will face mandatory retirement the year following a Presidential election cycle and each subsequent year which does not contain a Presidential election cycle on June 30th. This will include Chief and Associate Justices. If a new Justice has not been confirmed by October 1st of the same year, then the Chief Justice shall have the discretion of reactivating a retired Justice in accordance with paragraph #2. A Chief Justice cannot face mandatory retirement with less than five years in that role, however the next senior Associate Justice with a minimum of 20 years of service will then be required to retire. Only one Justice per year may be mandatorily retired. If two or more Justices qualify in any year, only the senior is required to retire.

2. In the event of death, incapacity, voluntary retirement prior to 20 years of service or vacancy, the Chief Justice can provide for temporary reinstatement of a retired Supreme Court Justice for a non-renewable period of one year or one term, whichever is greater. Once the period has expired, there is no extension. In the event of death or incapacity of the Chief Justice, the senior Associate Justice becomes the Chief Justice pending Senate consent of a new nominee. Requests for reinstatement must be made in the reverse order of retirement with the most recent retiree being solicited first. If that individual declines the request, the next most recent retiree is solicited. In the event there are no retired Justices available or none accept reinstatement, the court will revert to rules pertaining to an even number of Justices. The reinstatement of a temporary Justice ends when the incapacity or vacancy ends.

3. The Senate is required to advise and consent on Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, if vacancy has been created for any reason, after 120 days from the official date of nomination there has not been a confirmation vote made available to a quorum of Senators in whole, then the nominee will be deemed consented to by the Senate and confirmed due to inaction.

Just my thoughts, these and $5.00 will get you a coffee at a Starbucks.

WW

 

[22lcidw]

This court was created by unconstitutional means McConnell efused to allow a president his costitutional right to nominate a judge, then he rushed another in during an election that a republican eventually lost. Both those seats woulld have stopped what we see nnow..

Those judges will end up helping African American areas more than the Prog ones will. Give these people a chance. they are reigning in extremism. Something that can be done at a cheaper price and not bankrupt the nation.

 

[Lesh]

Allowing an old corrupt fool the power of picking all those new judges for the expansion, is unethical.

You mean Trump and his three picks right?

 

[gipper]

You mean Trump and his three picks right?

Apparently you don’t know, the court wasn’t expanded under dumb Don.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Nor does instituting real ethics rules

To borrow a phrase - just where do you expect to find these angels you speak of to set these rules for us?

 

[Lesh]

Apparently you don’t know, the court wasn’t expanded under dumb Don.

Didn't say it was but dumb Donald picked THREE out of nine Justices.