Is ‘this’ what the Dems really want as Xiden’s legacy?
President Joe Biden on Monday called the U.S. Supreme Court “extreme” as he detailed his proposal for sweeping changes, including limiting justices to 18-year terms, during a speech to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library in Austin.
Biden unveiled his plan for Supreme Court reform, which also included an enforceable ethics code for the nine justices, in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Monday. He also called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity.
Full article, HERE from the Texas Tribune, since I don’t have a WAPO subscription and the Oped is behind a paywall.
Welp, ‘personally’, I think the constitutional amendment is DOA, but if the dems get control of the entire congress, the other two could very well pass, as long as 2/3 vote is not required.
But I cannot help but wonder if something like this is what they want as his legacy as he goes out the door. I know it’s not going to be ‘good’ anyway, but damn…
Slo Jo knows nothing of this, except what he read off the prompter.
NOTHING will be too wild for this brain-dead, Lame Duck’s handlers to put out there.
Agreed. I think we’re going to see lots of odd ball out there proposals in the next 5 months. We’ll probably see more EOs also as they try to get a few more items in place before they lose.
If the 3 branches of government really are equal, I don’t see how the House and Senate can impose anything on the Supreme Court. But what do I know?
Something will happen in the next three weeks, before the DNC Convention, Harris will go into the convention as President. She will have chosen her VP.
Biden legacy will go down just as we have seen it the last 3.5 years. We thought Carter was bad? Biden is 10 times worse.
Let me guess, the Democrat pipe dream is that Congress keeps extending the term of liberal justices and forcing retirement of conservative justices.
I think a constitutional amendment would also be required to impose term limits. The Constitution is clear on the terms for the President, house and Senate, but has says nothing about terms for Judges and Justices. The only statement on service for the Judicial branch is “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” What happens if Congress passes term limits and the SCOTUS finds the law unconstitutional?
I’m guessing the person that pulled the 6′ covid separation “requirement” out of their ass came up with the 18 year limit for Supreme Court justices. Why 18 years? Why not 7 or 12 or 19.453 years? If Congress can impose term limits on the Court, I say fair play is in order. The Court should impose limits on Congress to a single term. No insider trading allowed. All Representatives, Senators and staff members must disclose where every penny of income comes from and display those sources somewhat like a NASCAR driver does.
All of those actions would require a constitutional amendment. Congress can’t pass any laws effecting the Court, just as they can’t for the executive branch.
They don’t have the jurisdiction.
Constitutional? When has that stopped any Democrat President from doing what he wanted?
Like Wilson.
Or FDR.
Or LBJ.
Or the Clintons.
Or Obama.
Or Biden.
Carter was an incompetent boob but he didn’t violate the Constitution like the rest.
Truman was a competent man and would have been considered a great president except he got sandwiched between FDR and Eisenhower. He also didn’t screw the Constitution like FDR.
The anniversary of the so-called-civil-rights-override-the-constitution act is an appropriate time to use executive orders to override the constitution.
Biden’s Admin plan for the Supreme Court is DOA. Any changes for the Supreme Court require a change in the Constitution and this will not pass. I would like to see term limits to the House, the Senate, all Judges, and all people in the Federal Government no matter their role or branch.
His manipulators are pandering to themselves.
The prospects of personal ruin are making the rats go full throttle to keep Trump out of office. At some point they will shut the internet down as that is the only information source they don’t firmly control.
An amendment to the Constitution takes a long, long time to pass, if ever. Biden’s handlers know this. It’s all election year theater and bad theater at that. To me, it shows desperation and ignorance.
All- Interesting comments, thanks! And some ‘options’ I didn’t think about… I ‘like’ the term limits for congresscritters too! LOL
test
Just a thought from this old knuckle dragging retired white hat, If this is such a good deal to limit the Supremes to 18 years, on markup lets at limit Senators to 12 years and Congress Critters to 6 years. That sould ensure passage, uh huh
In principle, I am not opposed to a Constitutional amendment to term limit a SCOTUS judge; to set the circuits to an even number; to set the number of SCOTUS judges based on the number of circuits, say, 1 judge per circuit, with as equal allocation of judges per circuit as possible.
Yes. I want the possibility of a SCOTUS tie.
The devil is in the details.
For example, the term limit can only apply to judges confirmed after the adoption of the amendment.
Increasing the number of judges is trickier. As always, the good or the bad depends on who is POTUS at the time.
Since the left can’t control the SCOTUS they have decided they must destroy it. That’s the mentality of the left. If they can’t control something it must die.
Always consider…
Any amendment that your “side” can use against “them”, can and will be used against you when they get back into power at a future election.
The big mistake is to make changes to the system, when the real problem is the voters. If the voters – including you – are willing to re-elect politicians who game the system or outright ignore it, no fiddling with the system will fix this.
That said… I do rather favour term limits.
There is reason in the idea that politicians should spend most of their lives in the real world, dealing with the consequences of legislation – both their own and that of others. When law-makers can vote their own salaries and pensions, they are insulated from the consequence of their decisions.
Here’s a thought… How about the pay and conditions of elected representatives gets voted on by the public, at every election. If the public aren’t happy, political salaries go down. That seems fair.
PeterW:
I do not advocate amendments to go against them but to clarify, in black letter, a limitation on the FedGov. Which is something for which I blame and criticize the Committee Of Style – prose and ambiguities won over precision. As a result we are living Hamilton’s vision.
The problems we are seeing are inherent and structural, since the 1st Congress.
How about a SCOTUS decision be subject to member States’ legislatures review?
All- More interesting takes! Thanks!
It’s an effort to grab votes.
But while we’re at it, let’s allow the state legislatures to elect the Senate, so they’re responsible to the States…the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Absolutely. Get rid of the 17th.
Biden.
What a two-bit, transparent, old fraud of a crook.