Kamala Harris Backs Controversial Supreme Court Overhaul Amid Growing Political Divide

[Social Media]

 

Vice President Kamala Harris has expressed her support for a contentious piece of legislation that could dramatically reshape the United States Supreme Court, according to Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The proposed legislation, introduced by Whitehouse last October, would introduce a system in which a new Supreme Court justice is appointed every two years. This radical reform aims to regularize Supreme Court appointments and address the growing concerns over the court's current structure and influence.

 

In a recent interview with The Dispatch, Senator Whitehouse disclosed that while the Harris campaign has not formally endorsed his bill, they have conveyed that the proposed changes align closely with the administration's vision for the future of the judiciary. “They have not gone so far as to say, ‘We endorse your bill.’ They have said that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about,” Whitehouse explained. The bill, if passed, would see the president appoint a new justice biennially, thereby creating a more systematic and predictable process for Supreme Court appointments.

 

Under Whitehouse’s proposal, only the nine most recently appointed justices would preside over cases with "appellate jurisdiction," which are the most significant and high-profile cases. These cases, such as the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, often have wide-ranging implications on American society. The newly appointed justices would serve for 18 years in this capacity, after which their role would be limited to hearing the court’s smaller number of "original jurisdiction" cases, typically involving disputes between states.

 

This legislative push comes at a time when President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have both signaled their openness to a revamped Supreme Court system. Last month, they announced their support for a structure where a new justice would be appointed every two years and would serve 18 years in active judicial service. However, the details of how this reform would be implemented remain unclear. The administration has yet to clarify whether these changes would be pursued through congressional legislation, a constitutional amendment, or executive action.

 

The proposal to overhaul the Supreme Court has been met with fierce debate, particularly within the Democratic Party. Whitehouse revealed that Democratic lawmakers are "virtually certain" to push through a package of significant legislative reforms, including the court-packing bill, if they secure a controlling majority in the upcoming elections.

 

Speaking at an event hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, Whitehouse emphasized the need for a legislative process that would allow for substantial debate while preventing the Senate minority from using the filibuster to stall progress. “To get around the filibuster, we’re going to have to have a process that allows very substantial debate from the Senate minority,” Whitehouse said. “We are not going to want to give the Republicans multiple stalls, multiple filibusters on this.”

 

The proposed reforms extend beyond the Supreme Court, touching on key issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, and campaign finance reform. Whitehouse predicted that such a comprehensive bill would have "spectacular tailwinds behind it" in Congress, suggesting that there would be strong momentum and support for its passage if Democrats gain control of both chambers.

 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has also weighed in on the matter, indicating that doing away with the Senate’s traditional three-fifths majority requirement to pass legislation—known as the filibuster—would be a top priority if Harris were to defeat former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election and if Democrats were to take control of both the House and the Senate. Schumer noted that after the 2022 midterm elections, he lacked the majority support needed to end the filibuster due to opposition from independent Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both of whom are leaving the Senate next year.

 

The prospect of dismantling the filibuster has long been a contentious issue within the Senate. While many Democrats argue that it is a necessary step to ensure the passage of critical legislation, opponents fear that it would undermine the Senate's role as a deliberative body that requires broad consensus for significant legislative changes. The debate over the filibuster reflects the broader political divide in the country, where issues like Supreme Court reform have become deeply polarizing.

 

As the nation gears up for another highly charged election cycle, the proposal to regularize Supreme Court appointments and the potential end of the filibuster are likely to be key issues that shape the political landscape. While the Harris campaign and Whitehouse’s office have remained tight-lipped on the specifics of their plans, the implications of such reforms are vast and could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal government. With the future of the Supreme Court and the legislative process hanging in the balance, the decisions made in the coming months could have lasting effects on the country’s legal and political framework.

 

The Harris campaign and Whitehouse’s office did not respond to requests for comment from The Post, leaving the public to speculate on how these proposed reforms might unfold. As the debate continues, the nation watches closely, knowing that the outcome could redefine the role of the Supreme Court and reshape the American judicial system for generations to come.

 

Credit: NYP 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[earlinclaifornia]

I like that. Lifetime appointments are 1800's Proof now is clear that sort no loner works out

[seajae]

hard to believe this is about fairness when the dems are p*ssed that the current justices are not backing everything the dems demand. Watching the supreme courts recent decisions it would appear that they have been fairly consistent  in being neutral and following the requirements of the constitution, cases have gone both ways and not all left or all right. The main concern is stacking of the court, it has changed from dem to republican over the years but if the justices use their interpretation of the laws/constitution and not pre conceived ideals they are doing what they were  appointed for, being left or right leaning should not be any part of their thinking or the appointments. Changing the way it works to suit either party is wrong on all levels, it needs to remain seperate to them and their voting needs to remain the same, it may not make everyone happy but that is what their positions require, as long as it is based on the constitution they are doing what they were appointed for.

[thaibeachlovers]

Of course she does. The social justice warrior wants to fundamentally change the US, IMO.

[pomchop]

There are at least two supremes who are a total disgrace to the court and the rule of law....When your wife is up to her ears in MAGA world and you accept hundreds of thousands $$ of gifts from billionaires and then rule on cases that impact them (and conveniently forget to report the gifts"then you have violated the absolute essence of fairness by not recusing yourself.

 

Shame on Thomas and Alito.  They should both resign or be impeached and convicted.

 

And yes the entire supreme court system of life time appointments need to be changed.

[frank83628]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Vice President Kamala Harris has expressed her support for a contentious piece of legislation that could dramatically reshape the United States Supreme Court, according to Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The proposed legislation, introduced by Whitehouse last October, would introduce a system in which a new Supreme Court justice is appointed every two years. This radical reform aims to regularize Supreme Court appointments and address the growing concerns over the court's current structure and influence.

 

In a recent interview with The Dispatch, Senator Whitehouse disclosed that while the Harris campaign has not formally endorsed his bill, they have conveyed that the proposed changes align closely with the administration's vision for the future of the judiciary. “They have not gone so far as to say, ‘We endorse your bill.’ They have said that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about,” Whitehouse explained. The bill, if passed, would see the president appoint a new justice biennially, thereby creating a more systematic and predictable process for Supreme Court appointments.

 

Under Whitehouse’s proposal, only the nine most recently appointed justices would preside over cases with "appellate jurisdiction," which are the most significant and high-profile cases. These cases, such as the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, often have wide-ranging implications on American society. The newly appointed justices would serve for 18 years in this capacity, after which their role would be limited to hearing the court’s smaller number of "original jurisdiction" cases, typically involving disputes between states.

 

This legislative push comes at a time when President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have both signaled their openness to a revamped Supreme Court system. Last month, they announced their support for a structure where a new justice would be appointed every two years and would serve 18 years in active judicial service. However, the details of how this reform would be implemented remain unclear. The administration has yet to clarify whether these changes would be pursued through congressional legislation, a constitutional amendment, or executive action.

 

The proposal to overhaul the Supreme Court has been met with fierce debate, particularly within the Democratic Party. Whitehouse revealed that Democratic lawmakers are "virtually certain" to push through a package of significant legislative reforms, including the court-packing bill, if they secure a controlling majority in the upcoming elections.

 

Speaking at an event hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, Whitehouse emphasized the need for a legislative process that would allow for substantial debate while preventing the Senate minority from using the filibuster to stall progress. “To get around the filibuster, we’re going to have to have a process that allows very substantial debate from the Senate minority,” Whitehouse said. “We are not going to want to give the Republicans multiple stalls, multiple filibusters on this.”

 

The proposed reforms extend beyond the Supreme Court, touching on key issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, and campaign finance reform. Whitehouse predicted that such a comprehensive bill would have "spectacular tailwinds behind it" in Congress, suggesting that there would be strong momentum and support for its passage if Democrats gain control of both chambers.

 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has also weighed in on the matter, indicating that doing away with the Senate’s traditional three-fifths majority requirement to pass legislation—known as the filibuster—would be a top priority if Harris were to defeat former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election and if Democrats were to take control of both the House and the Senate. Schumer noted that after the 2022 midterm elections, he lacked the majority support needed to end the filibuster due to opposition from independent Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both of whom are leaving the Senate next year.

 

The prospect of dismantling the filibuster has long been a contentious issue within the Senate. While many Democrats argue that it is a necessary step to ensure the passage of critical legislation, opponents fear that it would undermine the Senate's role as a deliberative body that requires broad consensus for significant legislative changes. The debate over the filibuster reflects the broader political divide in the country, where issues like Supreme Court reform have become deeply polarizing.

 

As the nation gears up for another highly charged election cycle, the proposal to regularize Supreme Court appointments and the potential end of the filibuster are likely to be key issues that shape the political landscape. While the Harris campaign and Whitehouse’s office have remained tight-lipped on the specifics of their plans, the implications of such reforms are vast and could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal government. With the future of the Supreme Court and the legislative process hanging in the balance, the decisions made in the coming months could have lasting effects on the country’s legal and political framework.

 

The Harris campaign and Whitehouse’s office did not respond to requests for comment from The Post, leaving the public to speculate on how these proposed reforms might unfold. As the debate continues, the nation watches closely, knowing that the outcome could redefine the role of the Supreme Court and reshape the American judicial system for generations to come.

 

Credit: NYP 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

But Biden is STILL PRESIDENT, why isn't he speaking, where is he?

 

this would not even be entertained if it were not for the fact its in the reps favour, Dems wanting to change the rules to benefit them again!

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

53 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

But Biden is STILL PRESIDENT, why isn't he speaking, where is he?

He made a speech calling for just that, on the 29th of July.

 

It is on U Tube.

[frank83628]

4 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

He made a speech calling for just that, on the 29th of July.

 

It is on U Tube.

where is he now though? doen't the US need a President?

[Hanaguma]

Yet again, the Harris campaign is trying to explain their policies by proxy. Nothing direct, but a spokeshole hints and speculates about an issue- testing the wind before making a commitment.  I guess we are all waiting with baited breath until Herself finally speaks on CNN.  At least speaks a little, as much as her Emotional Support Governor lets her. 

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

where is he now though? doen't the US need a President?

Certainly not playing golf or goofing around watching cable. Besides legislative duties, he is busy with series of current Israel-Hamas negotiations and receiving Zelensky's plan to end war with Russia. 

[mdr224]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Certainly not playing golf or goofing around watching cable. Besides legislative duties, he is busy with series of current Israel-Hamas negotiations and receiving Zelensky's plan to end war with Russia. 

Who are you kidding. Hes not doing a damn thing. Thats why they call him sleepy joe

[Trippy]

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Certainly not playing golf or goofing around watching cable. Besides legislative duties, he is busy with series of current Israel-Hamas negotiations and receiving Zelensky's plan to end war with Russia. 

What? He went on vacation in California for a week, then went directly to Delaware for another vacation. He's not doing anything except putting suntan lotion on Jill's back.

[Hanaguma]

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Certainly not playing golf or goofing around watching cable. Besides legislative duties, he is busy with series of current Israel-Hamas negotiations and receiving Zelensky's plan to end war with Russia. 

Actually, he is in Delaware at his beach house, recovering from his difficult California vacation.  

[mdr224]

Obama took a lot of time off too. Selling your country out must take a lot out of you

[TroubleandGrumpy]

This is going to backfire big time on the Dems. Trump/GOP will let this idiocy to politicise the SCOTUS, so that whoever wins POTUS can appoint all the SCOTUS Judges every 2 years, and shove it right down their throats.  One of the Dems suggestions has been to increase the number of members, and Trump will do just that to 11 or 12 I reckon, and then appoint 2-3 hard right Judges and force the nomination though the acceptance hearings. After appointing a loony lefty like Jackson, it will be great to watch them attack another Clarence Thomas. 

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, he is in Delaware at his beach house, recovering from his difficult California vacation.  

Biden can perform the duties of president where ever he goes. 

[frank83628]

42 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Certainly not playing golf or goofing around watching cable. Besides legislative duties, he is busy with series of current Israel-Hamas negotiations and receiving Zelensky's plan to end war with Russia. 

haha

[frank83628]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Biden can perform the duties of president where ever he goes. 

but not televised it seems

[Eric Loh]

16 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

but not televised it seems

He is not obsessed with TV ratings. 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Biden can perform the duties of president where ever he goes. 

You could say the same about any President, even previous ones...

 

But Biden can't even perform the duties when he is 'on duty' in the White House. That is why his own party shivved him and have coldly defenestrated him. 

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You could say the same about any President, even previous ones...

 

But Biden can't even perform the duties when he is 'on duty' in the White House. That is why his own party shivved him and have coldly defenestrated him. 

You can judge which Presidents performed in and out of office based on who enacted more of their legisltaive agenda.  Example Biden signed more major bills than Trump. You can made your own conclusion.

 

Presidential power can't be shivved or defenestrate. He too flippant in your remark 

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, mdr224 said:

Who are you kidding. Hes not doing a damn thing. Thats why they call him sleepy joe

 

Although it's true that Biden has had fewer "office hours" than many previous presidents, do you know who actually racked up less presidential office hours than any President since FDR? Donald Trump.

 

Quote

Former President Donald Trump’s working hours in the White House were the shortest for any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Trump averaged six hours and two minutes of work each day from his first appointment to his last while in office. 

 

Trump’s presidential office hours were the shortest since FDR, Biden’s not far behind him

 

In fact, Biden has spent more time working this year, than in any of his previous years in office. 

 

Quote

Biden’s presidential office hours have peaked in 2024. From Jan. 1 to June 30, Biden averaged nearly eight hours between his first and last appointments each day. Biden’s average presidential office hours have stayed steady or increased over his 3.5 years in office.

 

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

He is not obsessed with TV ratings. 

its not about him though is it, he serves 'the people'. he should be on show working for those voters.

[spidermike007]

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, lifetime appointments do not work any longer, there should be a mandatory retirement age, and a variety of other reforms that need to take place.

 

The Supreme Court as it stands right now is a completely broken and highly compromised Institution. 

[thesetat2013]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

haha

Actually they say, more business gets done while playing golf than in a board room meeting. Who is to say that is not affiliated with his position in office?

[frank83628]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

The Supreme Court is in drastic need of reform, lifetime appointments do not work any longer, there should be a mandatory retirement age, and a variety of other reforms that need to take place.

 

The Supreme Court as it stands right now is a completely broken and highly compromised Institution. 

is that because it conservative 6-3?

[spidermike007]

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

is that because it conservative 6-3?

Nope. It is because it is broken and morally compromised. 

[bamnutsak]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

Senator Whitehouse disclosed that while the Harris campaign has not formally endorsed his bill, they have conveyed that the proposed changes align closely with the administration's vision for the future of the judiciary. “They have not gone so far as to say, ‘We endorse your bill.’

 

'Nuff said.

 

The Supreme Court will not be enlarged or "packed" unless Trump is elected, in which case he'll replace Thomas and Alito.

 

I think everyone can agree that a code of ethics, like those for Federal Judges, is not unreasonable. And term limits should at least be debated.

 

 

Edited August 29 by bamnutsak

[frank83628]

12 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

Although it's true that Biden has had fewer "office hours" than many previous presidents, do you know who actually racked up less presidential office hours than any President since FDR? Donald Trump.

 

 

Trump’s presidential office hours were the shortest since FDR, Biden’s not far behind him

 

In fact, Biden has spent more time working this year, than in any of his previous years in office. 

 

 

how amazing you found a graph to show trump was the lowest...who'd have thought

[thaipo7]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course she does. The social justice warrior wants to fundamentally change the US, IMO.

This is all it is to ensure the Republicans will never win another election.  She like the one Party states like CA and NY and look at the shape they are in.  Run by Leftist and the people are leaving.  The illegals are filling the void.