What do people think of Biden’s Supreme court reforms?

Author: Moozer325
Biden
Supreme Court

Posts

Total: 159
Topic's author
#1
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
I know that there is 0 chance that these pass, but in theory, are you in support of them or not? 

This is probably going to fall along ideological lines here,  it just in case, I’m kinda curious.

I like them. I think they will help prevent this super-majority that Trump has made from happening again with either side. 
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
I like them. I think they will help prevent this super-majority that Trump has made from happening again with either side.
They will not. They will just make sure that democrats always alhave a majority and this is a pretty transparent attempt to make sure there is never any way liberals can be challenged for power
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325

looks good to me
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,806
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I agree with 3RU7AL.
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
They will just make sure that democrats always alhave a majority
please explain
#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
This is referring to increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court and throwing in a bunch of liberals just prior to radical life extension becoming feasible 
Topic's author
#7
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, please elaborate. You realize that these restrictions would apply to everybody, so how does it only help dems?
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
This is referring to increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court and throwing in a bunch of liberals just prior to radical life extension becoming feasible 
one of the proposals is TERM LIMITS
Topic's author
#9
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
I just realized that I accidentally posted this in forum games. Sorry.
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
one of the proposals is TERM LIMITS
That is terrible. WOW. So it's even worse than I thought.
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
Everyone knows it has no chance to pass, obviously the point is to get us talking about it, probably partly as a way of shifting the Overton window with the hopes of moving enough people for a chance at reform one day, but also to emphasize the contrast inn this election.

I haven't read them in detail so I can only comment right now on the basics,. It's about time we place term limits on them, this thing of nominating 40 year olds so that they remain on the court for multiple generations is not how this was intended to go. The need for ethics reform is painfully obvious, and the presidential immunity thing is absurd so definitely needs to be overturned.
Topic's author
#12
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
Why are term limits so bad? Besides, that’s not the big one. The two main things are the enforced code of ethics, and the requirement that each president appoints two justices two years apart. This way, super majorities can only happen if one party has the reigns of power for a long time, which makes the court  much more representative of what the American people feel.
#13
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
Why are term limits so bad?
The court was built to be immune from the whims of the general population so they could make more ethical and fair judgements. Term limits would mean the passions of idiots do get taken more into account with the judges being selected
Topic's author
#14
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
Term limits would mean the passions of idiots do get taken more into account with the judges being selected
No, it’s the opposite. If an idiot appoints someone who sucks at the job, well then you can’t get rid of them for life. This way it gets cycled out more often.
#15
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
These seem fine, anyone that isn't a dirty communist like wylted should be able to get behind a code of ethics and term limits. While I have heard good arguments for increasing the size of the Supreme Court I am still 50/50 on that but that's not being proposed anyway so it's a bit of a moot point.
#16
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
This is referring to increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court
Why the fuck you lyin'?
#17
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Democrats have been trying to do that as evil as it seems. I thought op was referencing this

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%94%20On%20Tuesday%2C,Smith%20(D%2DMinn.)
#18
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You might ask why this is evil. It is because it hurts my side. 
#19
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Oh, I thought he was talking about the stuff that happened in the last 24 hours not stuff that happened over a year ago.
#20
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Term limits for judges are stupid. Y’all need to go read the Federalist Papers. Ethics reform, I’m cool with.
Topic's author
#21
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ILikePie5
I do kinda want to do that now. Which one, I’ve read a couple?
Topic's author
#22
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
You might ask why this is evil. It is because it hurts my side. 
Dude, you need to wake up! You have yet to even explain how this will hurt republicans and help democrats. These apply to everybody and all they do is prevent super majorities from either side. Sure, they are in response to Trump’s super majority, but they prevent one from either side. This is like saying taking away trampolines from your side in basketball only helps the other side. Well yeah, but you were the ones cheating with the trampolines. Honestly, any other congress that wasn’t so politically divided would have past this.
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,806
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

In this day and age only Atheists should be Judges. If they are not an Atheist they have poor reasoning ability.
Topic's author
#24
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,197
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@FLRW
In this day and age only Atheists should be Judges. If they are not an Atheist they have poor reasoning ability.
Okay, that’s a poor reasoning fallacy.
#25
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,077
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Being religious was never a sign of intelligence.
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,806
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Moozer325

Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists.
#27
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
You fucking people and your obsession with thinking that if something is fair then everyone will be okay with it is genuinely mind boggling. Right wingers don't want things to be fair. Unfairness and hierarchy are the foundations of their entire ideology. It's not incidental, the ideology is built on that from the ground up.

Republicans currently hold the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments. When one has an unfair advantage changing the rules to make things more fair puts the person with an unfair advantage in a worse position than they were in before. The fact that putting a person with an unfair advantage into a worse position is a good thing is irrelevant. They are right wingers. Their goal is not to make good things happen. How is this difficult to get?
#28
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,806
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,806
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

And the DebateArt High Intelligence Award goes to---------------------------"Discipulus_Didicit" !!!!!
#30
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
You do know that liberals are a hive mind and always vote together but conservatives are not and disagree on positions. It is why for liberal policies a liberal rarely ever dissenting but conservatives do. Preventing a super majority g does exclusively hurt conservatives and given that this is the final election conservatives are eligible to win, the liberals will have a majority in perpetuity should this pass