We Need To Amend The US Constitution

[Confederate Soldier]

Congress can do that. They make the laws anyway.

But the president won't be able to take credit for it.... i.e Trump could have never taken credit for starting the U.S./Mexico border wall.

 

[Pellinore]

As long as we're throwing out ideas for Amendments, I say we look at the Supreme Court first. They have no checks or balances once they are confirmed, and a lifetime appointment is a lot longer than it used to be. A Justice now can continue to represent the ideals of a society thirty or forty years old, and thanks to Judicial Review, a small block of them can strike down any law or EO.

Instead:
- Expand the Court to 13 seats, matching the number of Federal Appellate Courts; these seats remain empty at first.
- Every odd-numbered year, if the Court is not at full size, the current President gets to nominate one Justice.
- The President may make a recess appointment if the Senate has not made a confirmation vote after, say, three months.
- If the seat is still not filled by the end of the next even year, it remains unfilled.
- If the Court is full, the term of the longest-reigning Justice comes to an end, and they retire. The President then nominates for their seat.

Under this system, USSC seats are for 26 years, barring death or resignations, and each President will get two, and only two, appointments per term, resulting in the Court representing the society more accurately than it does. If it were passed today, the soonest any current Justice would be required to step down would be 2033. The Senate has a motivation to hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner, and the President can't keep throwing out shit candidates until they get a recess appointment.

Seems logical.

 

[Paleman]

As long as we're throwing out ideas for Amendments, I say we look at the Supreme Court first. They have no checks or balances once they are confirmed, and a lifetime appointment is a lot longer than it used to be. A Justice now can continue to represent the ideals of a society thirty or forty years old, and thanks to Judicial Review, a small block of them can strike down any law or EO.

Instead:
- Expand the Court to 13 seats, matching the number of Federal Appellate Courts; these seats remain empty at first.
- Every odd-numbered year, if the Court is not at full size, the current President gets to nominate one Justice.
- The President may make a recess appointment if the Senate has not made a confirmation vote after, say, three months.
- If the seat is still not filled by the end of the next even year, it remains unfilled.
- If the Court is full, the term of the longest-reigning Justice comes to an end, and they retire. The President then nominates for their seat.

Under this system, USSC seats are for 26 years, barring death or resignations, and each President will get two, and only two, appointments per term, resulting in the Court representing the society more accurately than it does. If it were passed today, the soonest any current Justice would be required to step down would be 2033. The Senate has a motivation to hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner, and the President can't keep throwing out shit candidates until they get a recess appointment.

Seems logical.

Wanna bet that Pallimore is hoping that this goes into effect during Biden's term so that the far left-leaning cabal can nominate 4 liberal country-hating leftists to the bench. Once accomplished, the court will forever remain liberal to the detrement of this country. Fuk that and Joe Biden.

 

[Pellinore]

Wanna bet that Pallimore is hoping that this goes into effect during Biden's term so that the far left-leaning cabal can nominate 4 liberal country-hating leftists to the bench. Once accomplished, the court will forever remain liberal to the detrement of this country. Fuk that and Joe Biden.

You missed the part where the seats remain empty, and get filled one every two years.

I am okay with expanding the Supreme Court, but I do think it would be overreach to nominate and fill all in one go, especially four at a time. I also don't think the public would allow it, regardless of party. I mean, Congress can't even give itself a pay raise without it waiting until the start of the next session to take effect.

 

[Paleman]

You missed the part where the seats remain empty, and get filled one every two years.

I am okay with expanding the Supreme Court, but I do think it would be overreach to nominate and fill all in one go, especially four at a time. I also don't think the public would allow it, regardless of party. I mean, Congress can't even give itself a pay raise without it waiting until the start of the next session to take effect.

Whether it is done 4 at once or peace meal the object is for the left to pack the court with liberal judges. The system has worked for 100 years or more, it does not need to be remanufactured to please the wrong side of the aisle.

 

[Esdraelon]

Democracy sucks! At least when you lose.

The point is WE ALL LOSE. Personally, I'm keeping records... karma be a bitch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...,a small block of them can strike down any law or EO.

A majority, you mean.
Where the block that votes for striking the EO, or whatever, is larger than the block that votes against it.

Instead:
- Expand the Court to 13 seats,

Why not leave it at 9?
Why relate the # of USSC seats to the number of circuit corts?
What if the # of circuit courts changes?

- Every odd-numbered year, if the Court is not at full size, the current President gets to nominate one Justice.

M'kay.

The President may make a recess appointment if the Senate has not made a confirmation vote after, say, three months.

That's not a "recess" appointment, that's a "prevent the senate majority leader from doing what McConnell did" appointment.
This will remove, say, Schumer's ability to do the same thing.

If the seat is still not filled by the end of the next even year, it remains unfilled.

M'kay.
This bring back the question of why the court shoud be expanded.

- If the Court is full, the term of the longest-reigning Justice comes to an end, and they retire. The President then nominates for their seat.

In the next odd year, leaving the seat open,
So, once full the court will never be full.
This bring back the question of why the court should be expanded.

Under this system, USSC seats are for 26 years, barring death or resignations,

Not sure how you get that.
If you want terms limits, why not just specify it?

and each President will get two, and only two, appointments per term, resulting in the Court representing the society more accurately than it does.

The courts do not represent society; constitutonality does not hinge on zeitgeist.

Your idea also means there will be significant stretched of time where here will be an even number of justices, meaning a much greater potential for a number of x-x decisions.
Why would we want that?

 

[alang1216]

The point is WE ALL LOSE.

The alternative to democracy is much worse. Ask the Russians.

Personally, I'm keeping records... karma be a bitch.

Me too and yeah.

 

[PeterPilot]

It really doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The Democrat filth will ignore it.

The thing that we should have done to keep from Potatohead fucking everything up was have performed a Congressional audit of the 2020 Presidental election. If we had done that Potatohead would have never been sworn in as President. But we didn't and now we are stuck with an illegitimate President that is the also the worst President this country ever had.

Keep in mind that Bush 43 declared that the constitution was just a piece of paper. He governed that way, giving us the patriot act, a blatant violation of constitutional principles.

Point being both parties for the most part hold the document in contempt. Both sides of the aisle have and do still violate their oath of office.

 

[Flash]

Keep in mind that Bush 43 declared that the constitution was just a piece of paper. He governed that way, giving us the patriot act, a blatant violation of constitutional principles.

Point being both parties for the most part hold the document in contempt. Both sides of the aisle have and do still violate their oath of office.

Democrats helped to pass the bill. Even Potatohead and Crooked Hillary voted for it so you are wasting you time with your partisan hate.

 

[PeterPilot]

Democrats helped to pass the bill. Even Potatohead and Crooked Hillary voted for it so you are wasting you time with your partisan hate.

I do not hold or express partisan hate. Why you must make that false claim suggests you have a weak position.

The patriot act is illegitimate because it violates the letter of the constitution. I'm against it. So you're for it?

 

[Flash]

I do not hold or express partisan hate. Why you must make that false claim suggests you have a weak position.

The patriot act is illegitimate because it violates the letter of the constitution. I'm against it. So you're for it?

You are barking up the wrong tree, there Sport. I was bitching about the Patriot Act a long time ago.

Bush did not enact the Patriot Act by himself. He got a lot of bi partisan help from RINOs, Crooked Hillary and Potatohead.

 

[PeterPilot]

You are barking up the wrong tree, there Sport. I was bitching about the Patriot Act a long time ago.

Bush did not enact the Patriot Act by himself. He got a lot of bi partisan help from RINOs, Crooked Hillary and Potatohead.

Great, we agree on something!

If you check the record you'll find that the only man in the Senate to vote against the act was Russ Feingold, a Democrat.

 

[Hector12]

I would like an amendment to weaken the power of the Supreme Court. I understand the doctrine of separation of powers, but I do not accept it. I do not like the way five unelected Supreme Court justices, who may change their opinions after they join the Supreme Court like Earl Warren did, can overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

I would require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision. Any decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature. It would be possible to remove an unpopular justice with a nation wide referendum. Many states already have that provision.

I trust the majority of voters more than any elite, whether the elite is based on birth, wealth, or intellect.

 

[Paleman]

I would like an amendment to weaken the power of the Supreme Court. I understand the doctrine of separation of powers, but I do not accept it. I do not like the way five unelected Supreme Court justices, who may change their opinions after they join the Supreme Court like Earl Warren did, can overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

I would require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision. Any decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature. It would be possible to remove an unpopular justice with a nation wide referendum. Many states already have that provision.

I trust the majority of voters more than any elite, whether the elite is based on birth, wealth, or intellect.

First of all, you would have no problem with the staffing of the supreme court if it were 6 to 3 in favor of leftwing judges. Your argument is not about fairness or common sense, it is about getting your dangerously demented way. Secondly, the court as it stands is our only protection from far-left idiocy running amuck in every facet of our lives. FJB

 

[Hector12]

First of all, you would have no problem with the staffing of the supreme court if it were 6 to 3 in favor of leftwing judges. Your argument is not about fairness or common sense, it is about getting your dangerously demented way. Secondly, the court as it stands is our only protection from far-left idiocy running amuck in every facet of our lives. FJB

You are projecting opinions onto me that I lack. Supreme Court justices usually grow up in privileged circumstances. They are not exposed to the stresses of life most Americans face. They live in what George Orwell called "money sheltered ignorance." They have never been crime victims, for example.

Supreme Court decisions are usually to the left of most Americans on social issues, and to the right of most Americans on economic issues. Generally speaking I am socially conservative and economically liberal.

The American people never voted for forced school busing. We never voted for affirmative action. We certainly will never vote for racial reparations.

On the other hand, we never voted for unlimited financial campaign contributions. For years popular opinion surveys have indicated majority support for a more progressive tax system.

The amendment I recommend would make the U.S. government more democratic.

 

[Viktor]

You are projecting opinions onto me that I lack. Supreme Court justices usually grow up in privileged circumstances. They are not exposed to the stresses of life most Americans face. They live in what George Orwell called "money sheltered ignorance." They have never been crime victims, for example.

Supreme Court decisions are usually to the left of most Americans on social issues, and to the right of most Americans on economic issues. Generally speaking I am socially conservative and economically liberal.

The American people never voted for forced school busing. We never voted for affirmative action. We certainly will never vote for racial reparations.

On the other hand, we never voted for unlimited financial campaign contributions. For years popular opinion surveys have indicated majority support for a more progressive tax system.

The amendment I recommend would make the U.S. government more democratic.

The Supreme Ct is not supposed to be democratic. It is supposed to ensure our laws and legal system conform to the US Constitution. Without that guarrantee, the leftist idiots could screw up this country even more than they already have.

 

[PeterPilot]

I would like an amendment to weaken the power of the Supreme Court. I understand the doctrine of separation of powers, but I do not accept it. I do not like the way five unelected Supreme Court justices, who may change their opinions after they join the Supreme Court like Earl Warren did, can overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

I would require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision. Any decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature. It would be possible to remove an unpopular justice with a nation wide referendum. Many states already have that provision.

I trust the majority of voters more than any elite, whether the elite is based on birth, wealth, or intellect.

It was demonstrated in 2020 that US elections can be stolen easily. False ballots are easily generated.

 

[Hector12]

The Supreme Ct is not supposed to be democratic. It is supposed to ensure our laws and legal system conform to the US Constitution. Without that guarrantee, the leftist idiots could screw up this country even more than they already have.

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one likes it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of The Absolute Truth.

Actually, the United States Constitution is vaguely worded, and open to many interpretations. Supreme Court justices are not dispassionate defenders of the Constitution. They have values and concerns that they read into the Constitution.

For example, the Roe vs Wade decision was based on a presumably Constitutional right to privacy. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not mention the word "privacy" or "abortion." As far as I am concerned the Constitution does not defend either. Perhaps it should, but it does not.

I am in favor of legal abortion. Nevertheless, I think that is a decision that should be made by the voters, not by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is a loose cannon that can role in any direction, causing an enormous amount of damage.

 

[Hector12]

It was demonstrated in 2020 that US elections can be stolen easily. False ballots are easily generated.

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election honestly. Every public opinion survey had him comfortably behind. Everywhere judges, including judges he appointed, including Supreme Court justices, confirmed the honesty of the election.

Even conservative newspapers are getting tired of Trump's antics.