Joe Biden Reforming the Supreme Court to Uphold Justice and Accountability My Plan

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

If he can go through the process as laid out let him do it. But you know that is simply not the case he just speaks and drools.

And yet under his administration we have the strongest economy on the planet the best recovery from inflation in the developed world he’s brought manufacturing back home stopped our and Europes deadliest foe to a standstill for less than 5% of our defense budget strengthened nato with 2 new top tier members and on and on and on……and yes he’s old 4 years older than trump……

[Chomper Higgot]

Here’s the message:

 

If you want to reform the SCOTUS, which a clear majority of Americans do, vote Democrat across the whole ticket.

 

It’s a very smart play.

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s the message:

 

If you want to reform the SCOTUS, which a clear majority of Americans do, vote Democrat across the whole ticket.

 

It’s a very smart play.

And help regain the trust and confidence of the Supreme Court.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-poll-shows-majority-of-americans-believe-supreme-court-justices-put-ideology-over-impartiality

[Photoguy21]

I thought this site was about Thailand not some geriatric in the USA. Can we keep it to Thailand I am sure there are many sites that talk about the USA

[stevenl]

Just now, Photoguy21 said:

I thought this site was about Thailand not some geriatric in the USA. Can we keep it to Thailand I am sure there are many sites that talk about the USA

Sure, don't check the world news section.

[Photoguy21]

Just now, stevenl said:

Sure, don't check the world news section.

I do actually but this site is supposedly for posts related to Thailand not the USA

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, TheAppletons said:

Doomed to failure.  

 

USA constitutional amendments require 2/3s of each house of Congress to ratify and then 75% of individual states to ratify.  

 

Of course. It's a campaign tactic that signals to the Democrat base that these are things they would do if given the mandate by the electorate. You know, similar to the same things the GOP does when they're in power knowing that the legislation won't change anything. Or, for example, when the GOP adamantly want something (border security) then after negotiating a deal for what they want they then back out of it because they want to use that as an election issue. 

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

I thought this site was about Thailand not some geriatric in the USA. Can we keep it to Thailand I am sure there are many sites that talk about the USA

Refer the top of the page, there’s something about ‘World News’.

[Presto]

50 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

I thought this site was about Thailand not some geriatric in the USA. Can we keep it to Thailand I am sure there are many sites that talk about the USA

For your information: this is the section 'World News', of the aeannow site.

If it bothers you, or doesn't interest you, don't click on any of the links in that section.

[billd766]

9 hours ago, TedG said:

The Democrats are attempting to exert influence over the Supreme Court. They believe the Court should simply approve their unwise proposals.

Does that mean that you personally think it is OK, for ANY President to order the assassination of any person, persons or political party members that they don't like. and not face ANY judgement at all for actions committed while they were president?

 

Or that they could personally kill anybody at random and never be punished?

[thailand49]

Elections Has consequences and that includes both side. 

Trying to change the system the rules because ruling goes the other way. If it needed change why now personally As a Democrat Im jumping for joy Garland wasnt alliw to go through but of course if he was Biden handlers wouldnt be making this an issue. The suggestion what a hypocrite talking about fair and open. The guy had 50 years in Senate same with Sanders only now.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

I thought this site was about Thailand not some geriatric in the USA. Can we keep it to Thailand I am sure there are many sites that talk about the USA

It is in the World News Forum and as the USA is in the same world the article was published and commented on.

 

If you don't like the content of a thread, then why bother to read and comment on the topic?

[Wrwest]

Serious structural changes are required to address real issues in the USA governance Far too much corruption to continue to sustain the governance system. In large measure, money has been the cause of bending the systems.

 

You want to get elected? OK, but it takes money so you solicit campaign contributions. Businesses donate (oops, it has been ruled by SCOTUS that they are citizens, the same as I am). You get elected, a Bill is proposed which will cut into my profits. I go to you explaining the impact on my business, my employees ... and I remind you of my support for your campaign (large enough donations and you will need no reminder). You agree to "work with me" to try and change or defeat the proposed Bill.

 

We witnessed a recent political corruption in the President Obama nomination for SCOTUS. Senate Majority leader at the time,Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to debate or vote on the Nominee because it was an election year. Then a Trump Nominee is made in an election year and ... debate and vote taken no problem. Add, to that the "donations" made to SCOTUS Justices and those same Justices refusing to recuse themselves from participating in decisions affecting those who gave them "donations". Also, currently involved is the abrogation of established SCOTUS law precedent in overturning Wade and now declaring a Present immune to law when serving in office (when the ex-president who appointed three of the Justices raising the question of conflict of interest).

 

There is much more needing adjustment in the USA. Term limits is again being seriously discussed as the result of having, until recently the two candidates being in their 80s if elected in 2024. Certainly part of the American political/social dilemma currntly is the loss of belief in the working of the current system. The balance, the supposed safe guards have seemingly failed.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Serious structural changes are required to address real issues in the USA governance Far too much corruption to continue to sustain the governance system. In large measure, money has been the cause of bending the systems.

 

You want to get elected? OK, but it takes money so you solicit campaign contributions. Businesses donate (oops, it has been ruled by SCOTUS that they are citizens, the same as I am). You get elected, a Bill is proposed which will cut into my profits. I go to you explaining the impact on my business, my employees ... and I remind you of my support for your campaign (large enough donations and you will need no reminder). You agree to "work with me" to try and change or defeat the proposed Bill.

 

We witnessed a recent political corruption in the President Obama nomination for SCOTUS. Senate Majority leader at the time,Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to debate or vote on the Nominee because it was an election year. Then a Trump Nominee is made in an election year and ... debate and vote taken no problem. Add, to that the "donations" made to SCOTUS Justices and those same Justices refusing to recuse themselves from participating in decisions affecting those who gave them "donations". Also, currently involved is the abrogation of established SCOTUS law precedent in overturning Wade and now declaring a Present immune to law when serving in office (when the ex-president who appointed three of the Justices raising the question of conflict of interest).

 

There is much more needing adjustment in the USA. Term limits is again being seriously discussed as the result of having, until recently the two candidates being in their 80s if elected in 2024. Certainly part of the American political/social dilemma currntly is the loss of belief in the working of the current system. The balance, the supposed safe guards have seemingly failed.

Non of which will change until corruption of the SCOTUS is addressed.

 

President Biden has picked a policy that has broad public support, but which threatens all the powerful interests you mention.

 

My expectation is this proposal will face a concerted push back from the hyper wealthy and their shills, but if it gains traction with the electorate Harris will add it to her platform.

 

The timing is perfect.

[cncltd1973]

well done, these reforms need passing before the next election

[Iron Tongue]

6 hours ago, animalmagic said:

I will bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the Constitution and accept that Judiciary can be considered a representative election of sorts.  Please advise why term limits should not apply to ALL branches of Government; the 22nd Amendment considers it necessary for the Executive branch.

Because I am a constitutionalist, meaning that I believe in the strict interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.  And I have a degree in Constitutional Law from UC Berkeley.  I do not believe that there should be term limits for Federal Judiciary members or that they run for their office, as it was intended for Jurists to not be stained by corruption if potential Judges felt that they needed sponsors, make backroom deals, and the need to raise money to gain office.  If Federal Judiciary held lifetime seats, they would not feel the need to"repay" anyone or any party, and could make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution.  And based on recent rulings of the Supreme Court, judges elected by Democrats and Republicans often "cross the lines" to everyone's surprise.  And except for RBG, who refused to retire -and death caused these problems, Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges retire all the time without need to be forced.

The 22nd Amendment was a special case that came about after President Roosevelt served 4 terms as President.  If he didn't die, he had accumulated so much power that he would have remained President forever if he wanted.  After Roosevelt, both parties realized that there should never be another President with so much power.

But I'm not completely against term limits.  But this current Biden issue is a manufactured crisis because of the Presidential elections.  Stripping the ability of the Judiciary from "checking" the excesses of the Legislative Branch would be the beginning of real totalitarianism in the US.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Iron Tongue said:

Because I am a constitutionalist, meaning that I believe in the strict interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.  And I have a degree in Constitutional Law from UC Berkeley.  I do not believe that there should be term limits for Federal Judiciary members or that they run for their office, as it was intended for Jurists to not be stained by corruption if potential Judges felt that they needed sponsors, make backroom deals, and the need to raise money to gain office.  If Federal Judiciary held lifetime seats, they would not feel the need to"repay" anyone or any party, and could make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution.  And based on recent rulings of the Supreme Court, judges elected by Democrats and Republicans often "cross the lines" to everyone's surprise.  And except for RBG, who refused to retire -and death caused these problems, Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges retire all the time without need to be forced.

The 22nd Amendment was a special case that came about after President Roosevelt served 4 terms as President.  If he didn't die, he had accumulated so much power that he would have remained President forever if he wanted.  After Roosevelt, both parties realized that there should never be another President with so much power.

But I'm not completely against term limits.  But this current Biden issue is a manufactured crisis because of the Presidential elections.  Stripping the ability of the Judiciary from "checking" the excesses of the Legislative Branch would be the beginning of real totalitarianism in the US.

1. “as it was intended for Jurists to not be stained by corruption”

Well that’s not gone too well has it?

 

2.  “If Federal Judiciary held lifetime seats, they would not feel the need to"repay" anyone or any party, and could make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution.”

 

But if they did feel the need and or had fallen short of #1, then they have a life time to enjoy their corruption.

 

3. Engage that UC Berkeley Constitutional Law thing of yours and explain precisely what in President Biden’s proposals warrants this assertion:

 

“Stripping the ability of the Judiciary from "checking" the excesses of the Legislative Branch would be the beginning of real totalitarianism in the US.”

 

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

President Biden is expressing a view backed by public opinion:

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-fall-to-historic-low/

 

The public still rate the current SCOTUS over the present POTUS.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The public still rate the current SCOTUS over the present POTUS.

Link

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

The public still rate the current SCOTUS over the present POTUS.

You sure about that?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/supreme-court/

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

[TedG]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

For starters, I think accountability would be a good thing? Do you disagree?

The dems can start with themselves.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Iron Tongue said:

Because I am a constitutionalist, meaning that I believe in the strict interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.  And I have a degree in Constitutional Law from UC Berkeley.  I do not believe that there should be term limits for Federal Judiciary members or that they run for their office, as it was intended for Jurists to not be stained by corruption if potential Judges felt that they needed sponsors, make backroom deals, and the need to raise money to gain office.  If Federal Judiciary held lifetime seats, they would not feel the need to"repay" anyone or any party, and could make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution.  And based on recent rulings of the Supreme Court, judges elected by Democrats and Republicans often "cross the lines" to everyone's surprise.  And except for RBG, who refused to retire -and death caused these problems, Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges retire all the time without need to be forced.

The 22nd Amendment was a special case that came about after President Roosevelt served 4 terms as President.  If he didn't die, he had accumulated so much power that he would have remained President forever if he wanted.  After Roosevelt, both parties realized that there should never be another President with so much power.

But I'm not completely against term limits.  But this current Biden issue is a manufactured crisis because of the Presidential elections.  Stripping the ability of the Judiciary from "checking" the excesses of the Legislative Branch would be the beginning of real totalitarianism in the US.

For a strict constitutionalist, you seem guilty of some pretty loose thinking, Who is proposing that Supreme Court Justices run for office? How would restricting a Supreme Court Justice to one term suggest that they would be elected?  And for someone who claims to be an authority on the Constitution, you seem unaware, or at least unconcerned, that the number of seats on the Supreme Court is dictated by legislation, not the Constitution. So the Senate could change the law and put more Justices on the Supreme Court and any other Federal court. Given the Supreme Court's recent decision to largely exempt Presidents from prosecution for any criminal acts he may commit as long as they are committed on the pretext that they were part of their official duties, and Trump's explicit statement that the President should enjoy absolute immunity for any criminal acts he or she may commit, you really want to claim that the crisis is a manufactured one?

And once again, I note the point raised by no one other than John Roberts himself, that when the Constitution was written, people, including Supreme Court justices, tended to enjoy a much shorter life span and a much shorter term in office.

[kingstonkid]

8 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

I'm 83. I feel saddened snd victimised by your proposal. I need to lie down for a while to get over it..

 

Sorry to upset you but look at the president he is amost the same age as you would you want him on the Supreme court.

 

70 is just a figure my poiin t was set an age.  If after 70 they want to still practice law then they do so.  Or they canspend ftime with their family 

[riclag]

bidens disqualified Trumps Presidential Immunity when he excused the unelected bureaucracy to go after Trumps Classified docs.

 

bidens tried to promote and pass a order to forgive billions of dollars of student loans , later to be rejected by the Scotus, upset he lost .

bidens party tried to take Trump off the ballot in several states only to be rejected by a 9 to 0 vote by the arbiters of the SCOTUS!

 

The far left doesn’t control the SCOTUS but they are hell bent on destroying the rules & the arbiters who watch over the centuries old traditions.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/07/18/us-news/us-appeals-court-blocks-all-of-biden-student-debt-relief-plan/

 

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/07/01/biden-supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling

Edited July 30 by riclag

[kingstonkid]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

And yet under his administration we have the strongest economy on the planet the best recovery from inflation in the developed world he’s brought manufacturing back home stopped our and Europes deadliest foe to a standstill for less than 5% of our defense budget strengthened nato with 2 new top tier members and on and on and on……and yes he’s old 4 years older than trump……

recovering fromCOVID was easy but he sure cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

 

What manufacturing did he bring back and where does he get the material sto manufacture?

 

The stanstill with russia only using 5% of defence is nice but consider that TRUMP did it with no need to outfit other countries.

[nauseus]

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/supreme-court/

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

 

Yes, according to Gallup latest for Biden is 36%

 

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/507569/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx#c-pjac--demographic-groups

 

SCOTUS is 43%.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647834/approval-supreme-court-stalled-near-historical-low.aspx

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

recovering fromCOVID was easy but he sure cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

 

What manufacturing did he bring back and where does he get the material sto manufacture?

 

The stanstill with russia only using 5% of defence is nice but consider that TRUMP did it with no need to outfit other countries.

You seem to have forgotten that the previous administration also cost taxpayers a lot of money? Double standards much?

And it's pretty easy to diagnose what kind of sources you get your news from if you don't know about the resurgence of manufacturing in the US under Biden

Biden’s massive manufacturing push is working and U.S. companies have already committed $200 billion to new projects

The Biden administration’s efforts to revive U.S. manufacturing appear to be succeeding, with some business sectors plowing in almost 20 times the investment in new U.S. manufacturing projects versus only a few years ago.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-massive-manufacturing-push-working-221328463.html

And the US did give crucial aid to Ukraine during the Trump adminstration. Granted that Trump tried to break the law by not sending the second wave of weaponry as authorized by a bill he signed into law.  He tried to coerce Zelensky into investigating Biden in exchange for those weapons.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-administration-broke-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid.html

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Yes, according to Gallup latest for Biden is 36%

 

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/507569/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx#c-pjac--demographic-groups

 

SCOTUS is 43%.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647834/approval-supreme-court-stalled-near-historical-low.aspx

cherry picking much?

[nauseus]

Just now, placeholder said:

cherry picking much?

 

you started it.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

you started it.

And that justifies cherry picking on your part?