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

[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.

 

[pknopp]

This does approach separation of powers, attempting to enforce external standards on the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branches.

I dismiss the idea that any branch, that any person should be held accountable to no one.

 

[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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Somehow accusations are a “thing” but convictions are not?

That wasn’t what we were talking about, we were talking about just accusations of sexual misconduct should disqualify a person from office. He thinks Thomas and Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court because of unsubstantiated allegations, and I asked him is just allegations should keep them of the court and if he wants that applied to one branch of government then it should be applied to all three branches and if the same standard applies to all three then would the accusations against Biden and Clinton make them ineligible for office? Do you have an opinion on what we are actually talking about or are just going to try to divert the discussion?

 

[hadit]

I dismiss the idea that any branch, that any person should be held accountable to no one.

By the same token, no branch should be held hostage by any other branch to ensure outcomes favorable to one party or another. No justices should, for instance, be grilled on how they would rule should a certain issue be brought before them under the threat of non-confirmation, and the court should not be held hostage to threats of expansion specifically to ensure outcomes favorable to one party or another. This push for "accountability" is simply an attempt to apply political pressure on the court, punishment for inconvenient rulings if you will.

 

[Curried Goats]

you said that congress can change the constitution, they cannot. you were wrong. I merely quoted the language that proves you wrong. yes, I did not insert the complete phrase, only the pertinent part. Sorry if it confused your simple mind, clown!

Let's look at what I actually said you Simp instead of your frail, simpy interpretation.

Who said anything about unilaterally amending the constitution? There's a process for amending the constitution that includes Congress and the constitution already grants them the authority to impeach.

Now, is there a process for amending the constitution that includes Congress? Yes or No coward?

 

[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.

 

[pknopp]

By the same token, no branch should be held hostage by any other branch to ensure outcomes favorable to one party or another. No justices should, for instance, be grilled on how they would rule should a certain issue be brought before them under the threat of non-confirmation,

I've long condemned Senators asking nominee's to state a position on a case they haven't even had before them.

and the court should not be held hostage to threats of expansion specifically to ensure outcomes favorable to one party or another. This push for "accountability" is simply an attempt to apply political pressure on the court, punishment for inconvenient rulings if you will.

Biden's position aside, we should be demanding a code of ethics that is applied to the court.

 

[Lesh]

That wasn’t what we were talking about, we were talking about just accusations of sexual misconduct should disqualify a person from office. He thinks Thomas and Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court because of unsubstantiated allegations, and I asked him is just allegations should keep them of the court and if he wants that applied to one branch of government then it should be applied to all three branches and if the same standard applies to all three then would the accusations against Biden and Clinton make them ineligible for office? Do you have an opinion on what we are actually talking about or are just going to try to divert the discussion?

So you’re saying that mere accusations of sexual misconduct should be a disqualifier but actual convictions should not…

Hmmm

 

[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

 

[Papageorgio]

The Court had not conferred Presidential immunity in 2020.

That’s funny because when conservatives took a 6-3 advantage in the court the Dems were fired up and it was an issue in 2020, then we had the overturning of Roe v Wade and that was going to bring out every woman against the GOP, again, the Dems have lost momentum in the polls and they need an issue to cling to and they have nothing, this might catch on but the timing during the RNC convention is just Biden and his side take focus off the convention and the assassination attempt and refocus the voters to something they have in their favor that might stir voters.

 

[Lesh]

That’s funny because when conservatives took a 6-3 advantage in the court the Dems were fired up and it was an issue in 2020, then we had the overturning of Roe v Wade and that was going to bring out every woman against the GOP, again, the Dems have lost momentum in the polls and they need an issue to cling to and they have nothing, this might catch on but the timing during the RNC convention is just Biden and his side take focus off the convention and the assassination attempt and refocus the voters to something they have in their favor that might stir voters.

This has been building since McTurtle stole the Scalia seat for Gorsuch

The recent ruling was the tipping point

 

[M14 Shooter]

It wasn't. It was a Machiavellian power grab designed to carry out a very personal agenda.

if one of your people did this, you;d be proud.

 

[berg80]

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

Hmmmmmmmmm. Seems like you purposely took an example with no context to the discussion. That being a wealthy businessman with a direct financial interest in a SC case giving lavish gifts and vacations to a justice who did not recuse himself. You aren't just disingenuous, you're dishonest.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you’re saying that mere accusations of sexual misconduct should be a disqualifier but actual convictions should not…

Hmmm

I said nothing of the sort, again you failed to follow gator and his line of thought, he is the one advocating for it not me, go attack him, I was just asking a question and he hasn’t answered. Good grief can you comprehend anything you read? If you can follow the posts don’t comment it, makes you look really stupid.