No mention of term limits for Representatives and Senators….remember, Joe was a Senator from 1973 until January 2009, when he took office as VP…nor any explanation on how Joe’s plan actually comports with the Constitution
Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Right, right, and how would this work?
“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court. … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.
Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.
I’m using the Washington Post article, because pretty much every other article feeds off this article, and nowhere does it mention that the Constitution pretty much establishes that the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is to impeach them if they are not engaged in Good Behavior, per Article 3 Section 1. Or pass a Constitutional amendment
(National Judicial College) Many judges pointed out that term limits may be a moot proposition because the Constitution appears to give Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that, and with the country so evenly divided politically, amending the Constitution appears impossible for the foreseeable future.
Good Behavior doesn’t mean removal for rulings people do not like, it means criminal behavior, like storing classified documents they have no right to have in the garage next to the Corvette
Several judges also took a cynical view of the proposal, seeing it as an attempt at decisional manipulation.
“So you disagree with the opinions of the justices on the court and now you want term limits? This is precisely why lifetime appointments are so important,” one unnamed judge wrote. “Someone has to protect the Constitution.”
Further, how would this work? Democrats have been pushing for a rotating 18 year limit
“An 18-year limit would enable a regular and planned refresh of the court and avoid the political upheaval associated with sudden death and which party is in power,” declared one anonymous judge.
But Judge Eugene M. Velazco, Jr. of the Merrillville, Indiana, Town Court was skeptical.
He imagined a scenario in which a president could name two candidates during an initial four-year term and two more in a second term. “You could also go long periods of time without a full bench because an opposing party from the president in the Senate could block the selection.”
That could end up being bad for one party or the other. Further, it wouldn’t start for quite some time, so, Dems would have to deal with the Conservatives on the Court ruling for the Constitution for almost 2 decades before this starts.
And, really, is this what people care about? It’s low hanging fruit, especially with the inflation, high prices of food, housing, and more, wars raging that could get much, much worse, illegal aliens who came in record numbers, and other issues. Will the Democrats spend a lot of time whining about the Supreme Court at their convention? I guess we’ll see.
Why yes, yes you do.
Thanks!
#RunJoeyRun!
#Trump2024-NotRevengeButAnswers
Bwaha! Lolgf
The concept of term limits does have some merit, however let’s start somewhere that needs it more,Congress. Limit the house to 3 terms and the senate to 2 terms. Strip pensions and limit the perks. The founders never intended elected service to be a career job.
DAMN YOU, CONSTITUTION!! You win again!!
I am in favor of some judicial reform, but I favor it on ideological grounds not because I want a court that is more biased for my own favored outcomes. Basic ideas like separation of powers, recognition of personal rights and checks and balances should be strengthened and a court system designed 250 years ago is no longer adequate to the task.
I propose:
1. Increase the Supreme Court to 100 members. Two from each state, selected by the legislatures of those states. Members will be prohibited from living in the DC area. They should conduct court business from their home states.
2. No term limits. Justices appointed for life with a mandatory retirement age of 65.
3. 10 retired members shall be appointed to act as a board of directors, elected by the other justices. Board of directors serve a single 5 year term. Their duties shall be limited to answering big questions about the direction and composition of the courts. Their decisions are limited to executive actions regulating the court itself. They will also establish ethics rules for the courts and hear any case where a supreme court justice is the defendant. The board also makes assignments of other justices to the various parts of the court. The composition of the court will change every 2 years.
4. 30 justices will only hear cases where the constitutionality of laws are at issue. Their powers shall be limited to striking down laws, not imposing any other outcomes or remedies. 21 justices will hear each case and make decisions. The others are spares to fill in for leaves, vacations, illnesses, or other absences.
5. 30 Justices will only hear cases arising from lower courts ignoring Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Their only power will be to remove and disbar lower court federal judges. Any judge whose decisions have been overturned 5 times will automatically be referred to this court. organized into 3 x 9 justice courts, randomly assigned cases with three spare justices to fill in for absences.
6. The remaining justices will form a pool to hear cases that normally arise to the Supreme court through the current appeals process. Only 11 needed to hear any such case. Any rulings they make have affect only on that case and do not settle larger constitutional issues. This will give the courts much greater ability to wade through valid appeals and return decisions a a great many more cases than they can currently see.
7. The Supreme Court pool justices will retain original jurisdiction in all cases of criminal complaints against current and former Presidents of the USA, Sitting Senators, Governors, Members of the House of Representatives, Federal judges, cabinet members, and federal prosecutors.
The current 9 justices have too much power. No individuals in America should have that much power. Civil rights are best protected by sharing that power between 100 people instead of just 9. Taking the power of appointment away from the President and Senate will ensure extreme party activists will not make it to the court and will reflect the makeup of the states they come from. This establishes a mechanism for ensuring no one is above the law and neither will the law be used to persecute political opponents for the nation’s highest offices.
Yikes! We agree! Right now (and for our history) we have had five individuals essentially making law, with little chance of oversight.
The ideal was to have 9 of the wisest, most unbiased, students of the US Constitution. The system hasn’t worked to the benefit of the mass of Americans.
Teach said: Good Behavior doesn’t mean removal for rulings people do not like, it means criminal behavior, like storing classified documents they have no right to have
That’s a pretty specific crime for a justice to have committed! No crime is required to impeach a judge. Impeachment is a political act. A House subcommittee votes, followed by the full body simple majority. If approved the action moves to the Senate for a trial, needing a 2/3rd majority (67 Senators).
Alito flying the American flag upside down in support of a political candidate is not a crime. The U.S. Flag Code of 1942 states that the flag should not be inverted “except as a signal of dire distress in instance of extreme danger to life or property”, but in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that prosecution under that law violated the 1st Amendment. Republicans used to respect the flag, but the MAGA Party is different.
Alito accepted private jet flights totaling over $100,000 from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who has had over 10 cases before the high court, One of the cases where Alito voted in the majority led Singer to a $2.4 BILLION payout. Alito did NOT disclose the gifts.
Over the past two decades Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted $2.4 MILLION in gifts, many from billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Alito accepted $170,000 while ALL the other justices COMBINED accepted only $78,000. Of recent, former Justices only Scalia came close with $176,000.
Thomas has also received $1.8 MILLION in “likely gifts”, e.g., free vacations, from billionaire Crow.
Justice Thomas did not disclose most of the gifts until recently.
Today, Supreme Court nominees are selected not for their judgement but for their ideology.
What a mess. We’re a plutocracy where billionaires openly control our lawmakers and now our judges. Billionaires are flocking to Trump based on his promise of billionaire tax benefits. Musk is giving $45 MILLION a month to a Trump PAC! Makes your $5 donation kind of irrelevant, doesn’t it?
What a mess…
BTW,
1973 Supremes (“Burger” Court, 1969 to 1986)
William Douglas (FDR)
Potter Stewart (Ike)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ)
William J. Brennan, Jr. (Ike)
Byron R. White (JFK)
Warren E. Burger (Nixon)
Harry A. Blackmun (Nixon)
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Nixon)
William H. Rehnquist (Nixon)
6 of the 9 Roe v Wade justices were appointed by Republicans.
That logic doesn’t work both ways.
Judges appointed by Democrats can largely be counted on to advance the interests of the party without respect to what the Constitution might say.
Judges appointed by Republicans are not predictable. Occasionally, they will render an important decision that upholds the Constitution but as often as not will run for cover and betray the supporters of the presidents who appointed them.
We respect your OPINIONS.
You could bolster your argument with a soupçon of supporting evidence!
My point was that in my opinion, “olden” times our presidents and judges were much less partisan than today.
Brother John, you touch on the issue here. Democrats on the bench make ruling to achieve teh outcomes they want. Republicans rule to support constitutional issues, even if it seems to undermine conservative/republican agenda items. Democrats only cite the constitution when it supports what they want.
I have always been perplexed that there could be something like a 5-4 decision. Shouldn’t all of the Justices be similarly educated in the law and constitution? Shouldn’t they all be able to reach a similar decision with differences only in their explanations? If the 9 top judges in the lad cannot agree on what the law says, what chance do any of us commoners have in defending ourselves in court? Every decision in a rational world should be 8-1 or 9-0. we have 5-4 decisions (or 6-3 now) because democrats put activists on the court and Republicans in the Senate have always voted to let them. Republican Senators had the view until recently that the President has authority to make appointments so he gets to choose whoever he likes. Democrats have been stonewalling Republican appointments ever since the Bork nomination. Those were spearheaded attacks by a mental midget named Joe Biden.
Mr Hale making scheisse up again.
The reactionary Judge Bork was rejected based on his weird appearance. What was that hair and beardlet all about?
In addition, and maybe more relevant, he was a rabid critic of previous Supreme Courts AND when all the moral officials refused Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, Bork stepped up!
In the middle of Nixon’s Watergate mess in 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox (who had subpoenaed Nixon and his tapes); Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked. Bork later claimed he believed Nixon’s order to be valid and appropriate.
We fully understand that conservatives then and now believed that Nixon did no wrong.
But we appear to agree on the incongruity that the supposed 9 best legal minds in America have so many close cases. Is it that the law is not cut and dried clear? Is it that justices have a built-in bias that blinds their legal reason?
As long as we are just making stuff up that can only exist inside our heads, here are some other ideas for a more perfect union:
1. Abolish the Senate. The USA does not need a redundant house of reps. Roll all their official duties back into the House and call them the General assembly, or just “Congress”. The Senate was supposed to represent the states. Since they no longer do, we don’t need them.
2. No term limits. The People already have the choice to replace their representatives every 2 years. If they fail to use that, it’s on them. Mandatory retirement age 65. No senile old geezers being “helped” to vote.
3. No lame ducks. If you lose an election, your powers in office are suspended immediately. It is ridiculous that we let people who have been rejected by the voters continue to act with full authority. Most of the government runs on autopilot anyway.
4. Eliminate the offices of VP and First lady. No staff or government money to support them. The president should support his own family out of his own resources. There is no need to have a VP at all. and the Biden administration has certainly shown us that we can do without one just fine. Just as the Clinton administration taught us we don’t need a surgeon general and Gabby Giffords taught us that Arizona does not need congressional representation.
5. Change presidential succession to #2 is Speaker of the House (assembly). After that, if additional stand-ins are needed, the Assembly will appoint someone until a special election can be held (30 days).
6. Speaker of the house will be elected at large as a federal office, like the President. Not selected from the pool of representatives.
7. Assembly members elected at large from each state. No districts so no incentive to gerrymander district lines. No republicans being represented by flaming liberals just because they happen to live within a liberal district. Perfect representation.
8. Federal elections limited to 60 days.
9. End the practice of so called “birth right citizenship”. People born in the USA and it’s territories are citizens of the same country their parents are. There are plenty of consulates that can support this. This is consistent with the way most of the rest of the world operates. I happen to support the view that this can be done by statute, but it would clear things up if a constitutional amendment were used.
10. Laws in the legislature must have 2/3 majority to pass. Thus ending the practice of the 51% majority imposing their extreme views on everyone. If congress is unable to conduct business that way, so much the better. I suspect they will find a way to get along so they can continue spending.
11. No American troops may deploy to a potential war zone without 2/3rd majority of the Assembly. US troops stationed outside the US border must be reauthorized every 2 years.
You’ve got a pretty good start on a revised framework. Some excellent proposals.
I have to disagree with #7. I think this would lead to the same problem at the state leve that the Electoral College fixes at the national level. Rural citizens would be ignored as “flyover country”. Instead, I would propose limits on congressional district boundaries. Something like “No district shall have more than borders that are not existing political or geographic boundaries.”
I also think we should keep the senate, but go back to the way it was intended and have them elected by the state legislatures.
JimS,
Sure. As long as we are just making stuff up, your make-believe is as good as mine. It all depends on what general principles or outcomes you are trying to achieve. An at large proportional election means that if you have 42% democrats in a a state, you get 42% democratic party representatives. It also means that if you have 6% socialist and 3 % libertardian, you get those represented as well, if you have a large enough population to make the math work out. Obviously, Wyoming still only gets one guy and winner takes all. But California’s 53 can be split 6 ways and every fringe group will get at least one rep of their own and major parties will split representation according to the votes they get. Much more fair than the winner take all system we currently use in the electoral college.
With the power of modern computing, you could even send one representative per state from each party and make the strength of their vote in Congress equal to the number of votes they got to send them. So, just like in true democracies, each representative carries a certain number of proxy votes from his state. Either way, it’s not 1776 any more. There are lots of ways to easily skin this cat. My goal it to extend true representation and eliminate shenanigans.
If we can all agree that the Supreme Court needs updating, maybe it’s time to consider an Amendment?
It would, of course, require a constitutional amendment to do that, but I can see a lot of merit in unseating Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katani whatever her last name is.
I would also favor, if President Trump is re-elected in November, and Republicans take control of the Senate, of the retirement of Clarance Thomas, so that he could be replaced by another strong conservative. If the Chief Justice wanted to retire under those conditions, I’d support that, with Samuel Alito becoming Chief Justice.
I suspect if Trump is elected, Thomas and Alito will step down. Neither one of them is so full of ego that they will do a Ginsberg.