Some great initiatives by Biden to keep democracy on  track. Very likely Republicans will block in Congress, but at the very least will hopefully generate positive thinking for the future.

 

Biden unveils plan for Supreme Court changes, says US stands at 'breach' as public confidence sinks (msn.com)

 

 

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

18 minutes ago, novacova said:

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

 

What on earth are you talking about. The changes would need to be passed by Congress. However, unfortunately it's been republicans not abiding by their Oath of Office and blocking decisions purely on partisan lines, which in my mind is akin to criminal behaviour e.g. blocking trump's impeachment and border legislation.

30 minutes ago, novacova said:

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

What? Trump had the criminals. Many are now in jail. And he got the justice department to do his bidding. Thus the resignation of traitor Barr.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Some great initiatives by Biden to keep democracy on  track. Very likely Republicans will block in Congress, but at the very least will hopefully generate positive thinking for the future.

 

Biden unveils plan for Supreme Court changes, says US stands at 'breach' as public confidence sinks (msn.com)

 

 

 

The dems want to change the court because the court is not rubber stamping their dumb.  Republicans  should will block this dump idea.  

25 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

What on earth are you talking about. The changes would need to be passed by Congress. However, unfortunately it's been republicans not abiding by their Oath of Office and blocking decisions purely on partisan lines, which in my mind is akin to criminal behaviour e.g. blocking trump's impeachment and border legislation.

 

Voting against something is criminal behavior?  Huh?

13 hours ago, novacova said:

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

 W-T-Freak❗❓ Don't what what whacked out, upside-down bizarre-o world you're fooling yourself in...but you've got it completely backwards. Of course "projection" is the first go-to in the MAGA Cultist toolkit. But keep on deluding yourself if that's what gets ya thru each of yo miserable days. 

14 hours ago, novacova said:

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

Well their murder attempt failed. What would you expect from the left? 

Excellent proposals and long overdue.  

He was an idiotic old man that was barely comprehensible, lame duck, that babbled on about the courts and something about him and Martin Luther king. Relished the idea that he had witnessed more elections and judicial appointments than anybody else alive or pretending to be and after all of that came up with term limits, just not for people like him.

 

Can't he just go somewhere and quietly die? I bet Kamala is happy to have to agree and attach her campaign to that.

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

He was an idiotic old man that was barely comprehensible, lame duck, that babbled on about the courts and something about him and Martin Luther king. Relished the idea that he had witnessed more elections and judicial appointments than anybody else alive or pretending to be and after all of that came up with term limits, just not for people like him.

 

Can't he just go somewhere and quietly die? I bet Kamala is happy to have to agree and attach her campaign to that.

Career politician and total dope.

All of these proposals are just campaign slogans.  In the constitution it states that the justices “shall hold their offices during good behavior” which has been interpreted to mean lifetime.  So it would take a constitutional amendment to impose an age limit or term limits.  That requires 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to approve.  While it is a good idea, it won’t happen.

A code of ethics would be nice but the Attorney General can bring up charges.  Also Congress has the ability to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

In my opinion, most of the negative opinions about the Supreme Court is due to politicians and the media complaining about the decisions because they don’t agree with them.  

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, there should not only be term limits but there should also be age limits. Every justice should be retired at the age of 70, and they should not allowed be allowed to serve for more than 15 years. At that point it's time to put them out to pasture. 

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, there should not only be term limits but there should also be age limits. Every justice should be retired at the age of 70, and they should not allowed be allowed to serve for more than 15 years. At that point it's time to put them out to pasture. 

 

thankfully a process exists to do all of that. 

I suppose voting for the supreme court would be out of the question as that would be an extreme left version of democracy.

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I suppose voting for the supreme court would be out of the question as that would be an extreme left version of democracy.

At that point why do we need to have a Supreme Court if we just use what passes for popular political opinions and swap them in and out to make our laws?

20 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, there should not only be term limits but there should also be age limits. Every justice should be retired at the age of 70, and they should not allowed be allowed to serve for more than 15 years. At that point it's time to put them out to pasture. 

I have no problem with a mandatory retirement for the Supremes, say 70 or 75. But term limits are another issue. It would leave them vulnerable to manipulation if they planned to keep working after leaving the Bench.

 

IMHO, term limits for Congress would be much more effective. The Presidency has a 2 term limit, which is great. I would extend that to both the House and the Senate- max 2 terms in each. And a mandatory retirement as above. Too much furniture in the Congress, too many people who see politics as a profession and not as a public service. 

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I have no problem with a mandatory retirement for the Supremes, say 70 or 75. But term limits are another issue. It would leave them vulnerable to manipulation if they planned to keep working after leaving the Bench.

 

IMHO, term limits for Congress would be much more effective. The Presidency has a 2 term limit, which is great. I would extend that to both the House and the Senate- max 2 terms in each. And a mandatory retirement as above. Too much furniture in the Congress, too many people who see politics as a profession and not as a public service. 

 

you should need to be no more than 60 the day you assume office or appointment. After that you can not qualify again. You can serve your term but only if your 60th birthday is before being elected, appointed or re-elected.

 

 

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

you should need to be no more than 60 the day you seek office or appointment. After that you can not qualify again. You can serve your term but only if your 60th birthday is before being elected, appointed or re-elected.

 

 

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps modify it to say you can serve until term limit, but if your term includes your 65th or 70th birthday, you cannot seek re-election or any election after that. 

4 years in office and only now comes out with this?

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

Well their murder attempt failed. What would you expect from the left? 

They attempted to murder him? Gracious me, I must have missed that!

 

I really, really, must pay more attention!

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps modify it to say you can serve until term limit, but if your term includes your 65th or 70th birthday, you cannot seek re-election or any election after that. 

 

thats the meaning. You must be eligible on the day of election, or re-election. You cld get elected when you are 60 but would not be able to run again, you could serve your first term.

Just now, herfiehandbag said:

They attempted to murder him? Gracious me, I must have missed that!

 

I really, really, must pay more attention!

Yeah lone wolf! SS didnt even check the roof  nothing suss

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, there should not only be term limits but there should also be age limits. Every justice should be retired at the age of 70, and they should not allowed be allowed to serve for more than 15 years. At that point it's time to put them out to pasture. 

I assume you think the same should apply to the office of president.

1 minute ago, jesimps said:

I assume you think the same should apply to the office of president.

80 would be my limit for all.

16 hours ago, TedG said:

 

The dems want to change the court because the court is not rubber stamping their dumb.  Republicans  should will block this dump idea.  

 

Dems wish to make changes due to the obviously corrupt behaviour of some, judges acting contrary to the Constitution e.g. anointing trump as "king", as well as blatantly biased decisions along purely political lines. IMO all Bidens thoughts are for the betterment of US judicial processes which are subject to decisions by Congress, we do know the Republicans enthralled with trump will not enact the required changes. At least Biden is calling out to the American people a better way forward, unlike trump who primarily acts in self interest.

And about time too!

18 hours ago, novacova said:

The criminal left can’t get their way on policies so as usual they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws, it’s all they got besides their incisive wet diapered name calling.

Dealing with the current SCOTUS ... "they resort to cheating and circumventing the laws" (OK, true my reference is to the accepted traditions of Presidential Nominees). Now, let's reflect on Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) refusal to debate and vote on President Obama's SCOTUS Nominee because it was an election year, then debating and voting on aTrump Nominee in an election year?

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

80 would be my limit for all.

Ironically, I find myself more conservative. Either out of office by 75 or not eligible to run for election after turning 70. I am aware of both the benefit of age and experience and the need for greater progressive change brought on by the next generation. We could also discuss a maximum number of eligible terms (varying for 2, 4, 6 year terms).

18 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

What on earth are you talking about. The changes would need to be passed by Congress. However, unfortunately it's been republicans not abiding by their Oath of Office and blocking decisions purely on partisan lines, which in my mind is akin to criminal behaviour e.g. blocking trump's impeachment and border legislation.

Unless I missed something it would have to be a constitutional amendment and that's not going anywhere.

Voting on party lines is normal in the present party system, or did you not notice when the Dems do that?