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

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I have TRIPLE the likes you have and mine are all mostly POSITIVE, little creep.

 

[Batcat]

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

If you expand the court the Republicans will return the favor when they get the chance. Soon we will have to build a new building to hold the office for 150 Associate Justices and one Chief Justice.

 

[chesswarsnow]

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.

Sorry bout that,

1. Best post I've seen you make, good job, you surprised me!
2. Welcome to our world, where have you been Taz?
3. I will have to read your posts a little closer from now on.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. Short & strict.

The senate is the upper house of congress dumbass. Try reading the Constitution for once.

.

 

[Mac1958]

The senate is the upper house of congress dumbass. Try reading the Constitution for once.

.

Whatever the hell that's supposed to be about, I wasn't talking about that.

Calm down, snowflake.

 

[OKTexas]

Abortion was a RIGHT...until Dobbs

That's just the most obvious

Wrong commie, life is a right that can't be denied without the due process of law. See the 5th and 14th Amendments.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

See article 5.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Mitch McConnel successfully "packed" the court when he refused to allow a vote on Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee to replace Scalia....citing "too close to the election." "This close to the General Election the voters should decide," McConnel said. That was in March 2016, eight months before the 2016 election. Of course McConnel then turned around in the fricking FALL of 2020, in October, ONE MONTH before The General Election, and not only allowed a vote but rushed through the confirmation of Amy
Coney Barrett, Trumps third judge.
Lying sack of shit!

So PULEEESE!
You Trumptard MAGAts need to get a new gig and stop pretending you actually give a shit about any "integrity" of The SCOTUS....or The U.S. Constitution for that matter.
If you really gave a shit about either you would have been up in arms demanding McConnel's impeachment back in 2016 for derilection of his constitutional duty when he refused to hold a vote on the current POTUS' SCOTUS nomination.
But where were you?
Crickets.

Hey retard, you can't impeach a senator and do you think Reid or Schumer wouldn't have done the exact same as McConnell did, if the situation were reversed? Are you really that stupid?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually all of it is true.
Unless of course you just like to re-write history.
Or if you happen to be one of those odd folks Mark Twain warned about who habitually mistake a short memory for a clean conscience.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So you are saying you really don't give a shit about the integrity of the court....or upholding The U.S. Constitution....as long as "technically" no laws were broken in subverting it?

Wow, the commie retard strikes again. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, there was nothing done by McConnell the either violated or subverted the Constitution. The senate simply withheld consent, that's their constitutional right.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The court was meant to reflect the number of Circuit courts... There are now 13...

Of course there should be term limits, I would suggest that ideally a justice should be appointed once every two years (odd Years) and thus your term is 26 years.. It means each election would be for two justices...

Wow foreigner, you got that about as ass backwards as possible. The Supreme Court was established by the Constitution. The circuit courts were established by congress. BTW, you're not very good with math either.

.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

Pack the courts because they are making decisions that follow the Constitution instead of Liberal dogma.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh bullshit. They held that seat open until the White House changed hands...and then did the opposite to slam Barett in

And??????????

.

 

[OKTexas]

A simple plan.

1. Starting in the first year after the next Presidential election, each President will nominate one Justice every odd-numbered year, until the number of Justices fills up to 13, equaling the number of Federal Districts.
2. Empty seats, whether by creation or by death or retirement, stay empty until the next nomination year.
3. If the Supreme Court is full when the nominated year arrives, the term of the longest-serving Justice comes to an end. The President then nominates their successor as usual.
4. The Senate has a time limit on how long to confirm or deny the nominee (details to come). If no one has been confirmed by a certain point late in the year (again, specifics to be determined), the President may use a recess appointment.

Advantages:
- No changes will be made until the American people have a chance to vote on the nominating President. If this were passed today, for example, it would not benefit President Biden one bit.
- Every President will get the same number of nominees per term.
- It will put to an end strategic retirement, forced longevity, and death watches, and will remove the possibility of judicial reform through assassination.
- The makeup of the Court would more accurately represent the people.
- The Senate will not be able to "pocket reject" a nomination by stalling.
- Nomination will never happen while an election is going on.

If this was passed today:
- The Court would not change a bit right now.
- The President elected next year would nominate Justices for seats 10 and 11 in 2025 and 2027.
- The President elected in 2028 would nominate for seats 12 and 13 in 2029 and 2031.
- Assuming no deaths or retirements, in 2033 the Justice with the longest tenure (Clarence Thomas, who would be 84 at the time, having served for 42 years) would retire. If a Justice died or retired before then, their seat would stay empty until this time, and Thomas would keep going. The 2032 Presidential winner would fill the empty seat either way.
- Again assuming everyone is still alive and working, in 2035, Chief Justice Roberts would step down (turning 80 that January, and having served 29 years), with the successor to Seat One named by the same President.
- And on from there.

Supreme Court reformed, and no one gets free gifts. Easy peasy.

Try getting that constitutional amendment through.

.

 

[OKTexas]

My position is that the in-your-face partisanship expressed by "elections have consequences" is poison. We can't hope to have a stable society when half the country hates their leaders.

If elections were to have no consequences, why have them?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

We've already see that, this court is correcting it somewhat.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Good God, did you go to school in Baltimore? Get someone to read and explain the Constitution to you.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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..

Wow, another commie retard chimes in. The ghetto gutter trash made his nomination, the Senate just chose to withhold their advise and consent. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that. It has no time frame for the Senate to do their thing, Garland would have never made it through the judiciary committee or a floor vote anyway. Why waste their time?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

When are you commies going to realize the Senate is the upper chamber of congress? And both of your suggestions would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck, LMAO.

.

 

[OKTexas]

WTF are you talking about?

Expanding the Court does not violate the Constitution in any way

Nor does instituting real ethics rules

If congress thinks a justice has violated proper ethics they have the impeachment process. That is the only constitutional remedy.

.