Kamala Harris Backs Controversial Supreme Court Overhaul Amid Growing Political Divide

[thaipo7]

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

'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.

 

 

The ethics of the Federal Judges are not the best.  Most are Democrats and are corrupt as we have seen from Biden, Garland, Governor of NY, the state AG, the DA and the Judges over the cases against President Trump in NY.  This has been very clear that this has been political.  Trump needs to replace the 3 Leftists on the Bench.  Their job is to interpret the Constitution, not go along Party line.  We were warned about AMY Barrett.  A big disappointment.

[Trippy]

41 minutes 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. 

Maybe so, but who can be trusted to change it? Everybody has a political agenda now, so it could never be changed fairly. Best to be left alone, IMHO

Maybe put term limits on congress and senate, along with outlawing lobbyist first. 

[Scott Tracy]

Why are Federal judges Presidential appointments? Why is it necessary that the judges' political affiliation or views get taken into account? 

 

In regards to ethics, the judiciary should not only be impartial, but should be seen to be so. Taking 'gifts' from 'friends' who may or may not have business before the court is not good optics. Recusal should be considered. There are so many ways to make these courts less controversial.

[hotchilli]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

The proposed legislation, introduced by Whitehouse last October, would introduce a system in which a new Supreme Court justice is appointed every two years

Works both ways...

Good guys get bad guys out.

Bad guys get bad guys in.

Just depends on who's in power.

[PuiPuiHarry]

I canot understand somebody is appointed for life, whatever mental of physical situation. Therefore our monach retires at 75, instead of waiting till passing away, even as a senile corps, as in some other countries.

Second: I donot understand the US/UK attitude: it is us, the very good guys, or the others = the devil party himself, also called the opposition. In Netherlands, even the EU commissioner approved ( only one per EU member state), is one of a 3 % seats opposition party. Here, we (s)elect the best person for that position, in some other countries the best liar and cheat.

[frank83628]

4 hours ago, Trippy said:

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.

that is not a pleasant image, 

[Chomper Higgot]

She’s definitely got her eye on Kavanaugh 

.

[parallelman]

Why not 5+5...just like the balance of justice

I understand that she also backs taxing unrealised gains. Must admit I don't unstand that...does it mean they can put you in prison for unrealised tax evasion?

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, seajae said:

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.

The Supreme Court has handed down some biased decisions, most particularly the immunity one, which is nowhere in the Constitution. The Democratic judges all dissented quite scathingly.

 

Think about it. President Harris could order the arrest and execution of the entire Supreme Court. Trump could order the DOJ and FBI disbanded, and sell nuclear secrets to Iran. According to the courts' judgment, both would enjoy presidential immunity.

 

The entire immunity saga was an effort by judges appointed by Trump, to try to protect him from the consequences of his actions.

 

IMO it would be much better if the court was balanced between Republicans and Democrats. If they can't convince one another of the merits of the case, it gets sent back to al ower court to decide.

[herfiehandbag]

7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

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

29th of July was exactly one month ago.

 

I suppose that it is possible that it may have escaped your notice that the US is currently engrossed in a run up to a general election. Not only will the Presidency and Vice Presidency be decided at this election which will in turn decide who will initiate such reform, but also the make up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, who will enact any such reforms.

 

[herfiehandbag]

8 hours ago, mdr224 said:

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

I suppose that is the trouble with having an elderly man in the White House.

 

Remind me again, just how old is "I took a bullet for democracy Trump"?

 

I saw a picture of one of those playing card thingies he is hawking, dressed as Captain America, he looked about 27, but you know I think it may have been photoshopped!

 

[Yagoda]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The Supreme Court has handed down some biased decisions, most particularly the immunity one, which is nowhere in the Constitution. The Democratic judges all dissented quite scathingly.

 

Think about it. President Harris could order the arrest and execution of the entire Supreme Court. Trump could order the DOJ and FBI disbanded, and sell nuclear secrets to Iran. According to the courts' judgment, both would enjoy presidential immunity.

 

The entire immunity saga was an effort by judges appointed by Trump, to try to protect him from the consequences of his actions.

 

IMO it would be much better if the court was balanced between Republicans and Democrats. If they can't convince one another of the merits of the case, it gets sent back to al ower court to decide.

You havent read the decision, otherwise your points wouldnt be so stupid, and even if you read it, you wouldnt understand it

 

 

[Tug]

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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 bated breath until Herself finally speaks on CNN.  At least speaks a little, as much as her Emotional Support Governor lets her. 

Es she is being careful obviously the stakes are high personally I like that in a potential leader caution and forethought…..another thing to consider is she was the highly successful ATTORNEY GENERAL for the state of California….you know the one with the 5th largest economy on the planet….i dare to venture she knows of what she speaks ehh???definitely better qualified than a twice impeached felon sex offender that’s for sure.

[frank83628]

3 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

29th of July was exactly one month ago.

 

I suppose that it is possible that it may have escaped your notice that the US is currently engrossed in a run up to a general election. Not only will the Presidency and Vice Presidency be decided at this election which will in turn decide who will initiate such reform, but also the make up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, who will enact any such reforms.

 

i dont think that deflections could be any bigger!...you said exactly nothing as to the whereabouts of Biden, he is after all , the President of the USA, where is he to counter claims from mark Zuckerberg that   Biden & herris, fbi, cia,  pressured him to repress the Hunter Laptop issue? Biden quite distinctly said it was 'russian disinformation', more that once, where is he to counter these claims?

[herfiehandbag]

33 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

i dont think that deflections could be any bigger!...you said exactly nothing as to the whereabouts of Biden, he is after all , the President of the USA, where is he to counter claims from mark Zuckerberg that   Biden & herris, fbi, cia,  pressured him to repress the Hunter Laptop issue? Biden quite distinctly said it was 'russian disinformation', more that once, where is he to counter these claims?

Deflection? You start out by asking why Biden did not raise Supreme Court reform. I pointed to where you could find the speech he made a month ago on the subject; a couple of posts later you are burbling incoherently about Zuckerberg, Hunter Biden's legendary laptop, the Russians, the CIA and the FBI!

 

I don't know about deflection, but perhaps your posts would make more sense if you paused, collected your thoughts and wiped the mouth

froth from the keyboard before rejoining us?

[Cameroni]

11 hours 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. 

 

Zelensky's plan to end the war with Russia: "Give me 87 trillion USD, 4000 nuclear missiles and 60000 Lepoard tanks. We will do the rest"...

 

Biden said he will have to check with Kamala what America's chief ally North Korea thinks about this.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours 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. 

 

 

As usual, when having nothing to refute a poster's opinion bring Trump in as an off topic deflection.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

Why are Federal judges Presidential appointments? Why is it necessary that the judges' political affiliation or views get taken into account? 

 

In regards to ethics, the judiciary should not only be impartial, but should be seen to be so. Taking 'gifts' from 'friends' who may or may not have business before the court is not good optics. Recusal should be considered. There are so many ways to make these courts less controversial.

Finding a judge that is really impartial would be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

IMO never going to happen.