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

Author: Moozer325
Biden
Supreme Court

Posts

Total: 159
#61
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
In SCOTUS, the current "liberals" vote together 82% of the time.

The "conservatives" only agree 23% of the time.

Thus which group votes the LAW and which votes AGENDA?

"Article III  [ of the US Constitution ]states that these judges “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate."

It's all there already.
NO change needed.


#62
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Hmmm One branch of govt  dictating how another branch of govt will conduct its business. Looks like we don't need one of those branches of govt because it serves  absolutely no purpose anymore. 
Topic's author
#63
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Swagnarok
From 1973 to 2022, Democrats and left media respected the Supreme Court. After they ruled, Dems were quick to tell us that that ruling was "the law of the land" and that the decision had to be taken as authoritative and correct. There were no accusations flying of the SCOTUS being a body rife with corruption.

This period, "coincidentally", was one where the Supreme Court was handing Democrats everything they wanted on a silver platter. It gave them Roe v. Wade. 
I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.
Topic's author
#64
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Swagnarok
We must have accountability, which per our definition means axing Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (those three specifically and none of the left-leaning justices) and replacing them with people who, just coincidentally, will favor our ideology and rule more akin to how we want them to rule! 
I don’t think the conservative justices are any more corrupt than the liberal ones. My problem is Trump getting more appointments than he should.
#65
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Moozer325
 I'm mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices
The thing is, there's nothing in the Constitution limiting how many Supreme Court justices a single president may confirm. For instance, a total of 11 were chosen by George Washington. If there's a vacancy then the President is allowed to nominate a new justice. If a majority of the Senate goes along with it, then that justice rises to the Court.

It's true that Trump appointed an abnormally high number of justices by recent standards. Reagan was the last to have more than 2, and he had two terms. But that's a matter of coincidence. There's only 9 people on the court, and average life expectancy for Americans is in the mid-70s (your average rich and well-educated person will enjoy a longer life still). So normally there's not that many instances where one dies or retires. But Trump got lucky.
Think what you want about the Senate refusing to confirm Merrick Garland (Obama's pick to replace the right-leaning Scalia) and waiting until Trump became President to let him pick someone else. It was within their legal purview to do so, and I have little doubt that Trump's picks would've been blocked by Dems had they enjoyed a Senate majority during his term.
Topic's author
#66
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Swagnarok
The thing is, there's nothing in the Constitution limiting how many Supreme Court justices a single president may confirm
We’ll see, that’s the problem, there should be. It was precedent that every president appoints about one, but Trump abused the system and got three. This was eye opening, and it shows that we need to make it so every president only gets two. It was expect that every president should only get two terms until FDR got four, and then we amended the constitution to make it a law. It’s the same thing here.

#67
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,296
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
Bro put this in the wrong forum 💀 
#68
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
From 1973 to 2022, Democrats and left media respected the Supreme Court. After they ruled, Dems were quick to tell us that that ruling was "the law of the land" and that the decision had to be taken as authoritative and correct. There were no accusations flying of the SCOTUS being a body rife with corruption.

This period, "coincidentally", was one where the Supreme Court was handing Democrats everything they wanted on a silver platter. It gave them Roe v. Wade. 
I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.
Do we know it's a problem?


I see a lot of "3 or more from the same president" in that list.


#69
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
In this day and age only Atheists should be Judges. If they are not an Atheist they have poor reasoning ability.
We should violate the Constitution in selecting who should be responsible for interpreting the Constitution? You’re just trolling, right, Professor?

#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
My problem is Trump getting more appointments than he should.
please explain
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
My problem is Trump getting more appointments than he should.
that's really a problem with Democrat Supreme justices being power hungry and not stepping down before Trump got elected.

You roll the dice, don't complain if you crap out.
Topic's author
#72
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
that's really a problem with Democrat Supreme justices being power hungry and not stepping down before Trump got elected.

You roll the dice, don't complain if you crap out.
well yeah, this is just proving my point. The court should be free of politics, so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.

Topic's author
#73
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain
Well it was unofficial precedent that every president gets one appointed per term, but recently both parties, (but e specially Trump) have been trying to manipulate it in their favor so they get more. Trump got three appointments for one term. With these regulation, every president gets 2 appointments. That way, the court better represents the feelings of the America people. The only way a super majority happens is if one party has the presidency for a long time, which means the court more accurately represents the American people.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
 so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.

Well... what 3rd party are you going to support then if neither side wants to be forced out?

when the other party is in power
And that's not exactly what happened with Ginsberg. She refused to step down and get replaced with a younger version when her party was in power. If you want to blame the way the scotus looks today, Ginsberg had all the opportunity to prevent it. I guess in a way, grats to Ginsberg for not caring about the party politics as the founding fathers intended?
#75
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
that's really a problem with Democrat Supreme justices being power hungry and not stepping down before Trump got elected.

You roll the dice, don't complain if you crap out.
well yeah, this is just proving my point. The court should be free of politics, so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.
If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.


Well it was unofficial precedent that every president gets one appointed per term
Once again:

#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
Well it was unofficial precedent that every president gets one appointed per term, but recently both parties, (but e specially Trump) have been trying to manipulate it in their favor so they get more. Trump got three appointments for one term. With these regulation, every president gets 2 appointments. That way, the court better represents the feelings of the America people. The only way a super majority happens is if one party has the presidency for a long time, which means the court more accurately represents the American people.
i'm pretty sure it's random, based on if someone dies or retires
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
well yeah, this is just proving my point. The court should be free of politics, so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.

expecting anyone in government to be "free of politics"

is like expecting a fish to be "free of water"
#78
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
“The notorious RBG,” it seems, wasn’t really a team player. That, or she was confident Clinton would win…
Topic's author
#79
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Well... what 3rd party are you going to support then if neither side wants to be forced out?
I don’t have to support any if we pass this amendment. Then they have to be forced out.

And that's not exactly what happened with Ginsberg. She refused to step down and get replaced with a younger version when her party was in power. If you want to blame the way the scotus looks today, Ginsberg had all the opportunity to prevent it. I guess in a way, grats to Ginsberg for not caring about the party politics as the founding fathers intended?
See, it’s this kind of game that can be prevented with this proposal. There won’t be any political maneuvering like this if we just use term limits.
#80
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
But there wasn't any political maneuvering. Unlike Biden, the elites couldn't force Ginsberg to retire. That kind of autonomy should remain to keep elites in check
Topic's author
#81
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.
Yeah, that’s the point. The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
Topic's author
#82
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
expecting anyone in government to be "free of politics"

is like expecting a fish to be "free of water"
Well duh, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 

i'm pretty sure it's random, based on if someone dies or retires
Exactly, it shouldn’t be random. It should reflect the attitude of the public.
Topic's author
#83
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
But there wasn't any political maneuvering.
That might have not been the best term to use, but there is definitely stuff going on that shouldn’t. If 62% of American didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned and the court voted 5-4 to do it, then clearly something isn’t right.
#84
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Moozer325
To pass a federal law allowing abortions up to 20 weeks, you generally need a simple majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Trump would be open to signing such a bill. The problem is that both sides want to strawman the issue instead of resolving it because this hot button issue appeals to low info voters, which are the majority voters.

An issue that is primarily used for political gain and seems impossible to resolve is what we call a "wedge issue." Wedge issues are, by design, used to create division, mobilize base voters, or distract from other topics. Issues that are typically contentious and emotionally charged like "kids in cages" are often misrepresented, making them effective for political strategists who want to draw clear lines between opposing groups for the sole purpose of maintaining predictable political support. When the actual voice of the people is censored by those elites driving phony talking points, then none of the people can get together for a consensus vote where abortion could be solved quickly. The root problem tackling wedge issues is the MSM soft-censoring of the public with planned strawman talking points, not the individual parties.
#85
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.
Yeah, that’s the point. The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
How about you explain what you think the point of the three branches of the US government are. Contrast the purposes of each.


If 62% of American didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned and the court voted 5-4 to do it, then clearly something isn’t right.
If 62% of Americans wanted obvious lies to continue to be told there is something wrong. If you want a direct poll to take on the decisions of the supreme court just say so.
#86
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ILikePie5
Y’all need to go read the Federalist Papers. 
Ya, you read the Federalist Papers, um no. No you did not.

#87
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Moozer325
The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
What if the general public wanted to deny blacks from voting? Or bald people. Should the judges reflect that?

#88
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Ya, you read the Federalist Papers, um no. No you did not.
Stalker. How would you know what people read.
#89
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
MAGA MORONS don’t read. That’s why they’re morons 
Topic's author
#90
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,187
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
MAGA MORONS don’t read. That’s why they’re morons 
You need to stop being so polarizing. Many Trump supporters are MAGA morons. Trump is a good speaker and so he appeals to dumb voters, that’s why he’s so good. But not all conservatives are dumb. This is why we are so divided as a nation. Not everyone on the other side is the enemy.