If it already wasn't, The Supreme Court Is Now On The Ballot.

[berg80]

I didn't say that any of these guys were ethical. All I'm saying is that in the face of politics such as we have in the United States it's always wise to work within the framework because if you leave it up to people they'll screw each other until they're all dead.

Was blocking 80 judicial nominations "working within the framework?" The Senate has the responsibility of "advice and consent." Not obstruct nominees out of vindictive partisanship.

 

[Lesh]

What law has been passed that provides immunity for anyone? The last I checked, such laws have to be signed by the president, and I don't think Quid Pro Joe has signed any such laws.

The COURT has made that ruling and Biden has committed to enacting a law that would remove immunity for a President.

Clearly not the action of a dictator

 

[Foolardi]

I would be far more suspicious of what other changes would be sneaked in with the two common Sense changes.

" Common sense " and Democrats is at best a forgone
daytime nightmare.
The only thing imaginable " common sense " about Them
Democrats is their insatiably driven sense for being naughty.
Used to a rare exception among males.Now it's weaned it's
way into females.Like Nancy Pelosi and tubby sitter on MSNBC
Claire McCaskill and witchy cohort Nicolle Wallace.

 

[Lesh]

A friend…so what? He didn’t have a case before the court like you claimed. Had he, that might be an issue

So a friend can’t bribe someone?

 

[hadit]

The COURT has made that ruling and Biden has committed to enacting a law that would remove immunity for a President.

Clearly not the action of a dictator

IOW, not a law, a court ruling that defines what laws are unconstitutional.

 

[berg80]

A friend…so what? He didn’t have a case before the court like you claimed. Had he, that might be an issue

If you can't see the problem here I can't help you. Actually, I think you can. You just won't admit to it. Making you disingenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.

 

[struth]

So a friend can’t bribe someone?

Of course they could. But going on vacation with a friend isn't a bribe....it's just going on vacation.

I don't live in the worlds of could haves, we live in a world of reality.,

Thus far, to my knowledge only one current justice set on a case involving a company that paid her millions....Justice Sotomayor....https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report​

 

[Lesh]

IOW, not a law, a court ruling that defines what laws are unconstitutional.

Regardless clearly not the actions of a dictator

 

[struth]

If you can't see the problem here I can't help you. Actually, I think you can. You just won't admit to it. Making you disingenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.

Yeah, I don't live in dembot bigotied fantasy world, there is no problem with Thomas having a friend. Had the friend had a case before the court and he didn't recuse himself that might be a problem....just like it was a problem when Justice Sotomayor set on actual cases involving her book publisher that gave her millions....and you said nothing

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…

nypost.com

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report​

 

[Lesh]

Of course they could. But going on vacation with a friend isn't a bribe....it's just going on vacation.

I don't live in the worlds of could haves, we live in a world of reality.,

Thus far, to my knowledge only one current justice set on a case involving a company that paid her millions....Justice Sotomayor....https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report​

Thomas did a LOT more than “go on vacation with a friend”

His friend bought Thomas’ mother a house for instance

 

[Lesh]

Yeah, I don't live in dembot bigotied fantasy world, there is no problem with Thomas having a friend. Had the friend had a case before the court and he didn't recuse himself that might be a problem....just like it was a problem when Justice Sotomayor set on actual cases involving her book publisher that gave her millions....and you said nothing

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…

nypost.com

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report​

Which does nothing but point out the need for ethics reform

 

[hadit]

Regardless clearly not the actions of a dictator

You seem to be using the terms dictator and fascist interchangeably. Is that true? Quid Pro Joe is not a dictator, I don't think he has enough awareness of his immediate situation most of the time.

 

[Papageorgio]

It’s hard to know the precise combination of developments that changed President Biden’s mind about Supreme Court reforms and prompted him to place them more centrally in the framework of the 2024 election.

Was it the ethics scandals of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the Supreme Court’s own ineptitude in dealing with them? Was it the series of controversial decisions across a whole host of issues and areas of civic life in which the court wrested power away from the executive and legislative branches and placed it firmly in the judicial branch? Was it the six-justice conservative majority aggressively uprooting the court’s own precedents in pursuit of its own preferred legal and policy outcomes? Was it the fact that he’s trailing in the polls with his own re-election more at risk that at any previous point in his presidency?

All of the above are in play, of course. A tipping point was reached, and it’s unlikely any one development was the difference-maker.

Biden Elevates Supreme Court Reform To His Re-Election Agenda

It’s hard to know the precise combination of developments that prompted President Biden to embrace Supreme Court reforms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

trump's Court's popularity is in the shitter. Deservedly so. Perhaps this is a move by Joe to capitalize on voter sentiment. No matter the motive, reform is overdue. There must be accountability for crass ethics violations and for the lack of recusals when there are demonstrable conflicts of interest (hello Clarence). I can understand the Founders wanting to somewhat insulate the Court in order to maintain its independence. But they did not contemplate such a corrupt Court nor such polarized times.

Biden is just trying to get his base to the voting booth because he is slipping in the polls and needs an issue, otherwise he would have purposed this in 2020. The Democrats can’t depend on Biden’s health or the economy getting them close to a November win, and the Republicans are gaining momentum, look at the timing, during the RNC convention and Trump should see a slight bump in the polls after the convention, the moderates seem to be tilting toward Trump, the Democrats still have a chance because Trump is so polarizing.

 

[struth]

Thomas did a LOT more than “go on vacation with a friend”

His friend bought Thomas’ mother a house for instance

Nice of him. Still, a friend is allowed to do nice things for another....you don't have any friends do you?

 

[struth]

Which does nothing but point out the need for ethics reform

Or just not put unethical people like her on the bench....that's the problem.


It further highlights how you dembots are only going after Thomas, who didn't do anything like what she did, because he's black.

 

[Lesh]

Biden is just trying to get his base to the voting booth because he is slipping in the polls and needs an issue, otherwise he would have purposed this in 2020. The Democrats can’t depend on Biden’s health or the economy getting them close to a November win, and the Republicans are gaining momentum, look at the timing, during the RNC convention and Trump should see a slight bump in the polls after the convention, the moderates seem to be tilting toward Trump, the Democrats still have a chance because Trump is so polarizing.

The Court had not conferred Presidential immunity in 2020.

 

[Foolardi]

Was blocking 80 judicial nominations "working within the framework?" The Senate has the responsibility of "advice and consent." Not obstruct nominees out of vindictive partisanship.

Thankfully by the grace of God and good timing ....
Mitch McConnell was the Majority leader in the senate
when SCOTUS was about to fill a seat.Schumer and his
gang were dilligently pleading to call up Garland for the
post.McConnell was having no part of it.It was in an election year
and that is the right of controlling Senate Majority
to make the decision as to when a SCOTUS Nomination
was forthcoming.
In hindsight McConnel did Right by We the People.
Merrick Garland was pretty much an unknown.
It turned out he was one of Americas most notorious
political ringers .Historically he's nothing But a Ringer.
Doing ever last tidbit of Democrats nasty business.

 

[Lesh]

Nice of him. Still, a friend is allowed to do nice things for another....you don't have any friends do you?

“Nice things”?

Dude.

 

[berg80]

The COURT has made that ruling and Biden has committed to enacting a law that would remove immunity for a President.

Clearly not the action of a dictator

I believe the legislation he has proposed has to do with SC term limits and an enforceable code of ethics. He's proposed a constitutional amendment to deal with presidential immunity.

 

[berg80]

Thankfully by the grace of God and good timing ....
Mitch McConnell was the Majority leader in the senate
when SCOTUS was about to fill a seat.Schumer and his
gang were dilligently pleading to call up Garland for the
post.McConnell was having no part of it.It was in an election year
and that is the right of controlling Senate Majority
to make the decision as to when a SCOTUS Nomination
was forthcoming.
In hindsight McConnel did Right by We the People.
Merrick Garland was pretty much an unknown.
It turned out he was one of Americas most notorious
political ringers .Historically he's nothing But a Ringer.
Doing ever last tidbit of Democrats nasty business.

So McTreason's act of treachery was also the result of divine intervention? What is it with you folks?

"Merrick Garland was pretty much an unknown.' No he wasn't.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/merrick-garland-republicans-praise/index.html