- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden release SCOTUS overhaul... his only priority in last 6 months
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:45 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:45 am to Jjdoc
Regardless of what you think of the immunity ruling, if anything it seems less extensive than the Nixon v US ruling that nobody's been complaining about for the last 50 years.
1
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:46 am to lake chuck fan
It’s not about it ever passing, it’s about HEADLINES and energizing their crazy base.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:46 am to Tigerroar73
Except Dems dealt with the Nixon ruling because it helped sweep out Ford in 1976 and helped solidify control of Congress.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:47 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Probably could live with 18 year terms for SC Justices
But they also said that a president would be appointing a new justice every 2 years. How does an 18 year term limit equate to appointing a new justice every 2 years? There has to be new presidential court packing language in there as well, right?
Posted on 7/29/24 at 9:49 am to Godfather1
quote:
Very difficult to amend the constitution.
As it should be.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:39 am to Bamatab
quote:
But they also said that a president would be appointing a new justice every 2 years. How does an 18 year term limit equate to appointing a new justice every 2 years?
My guess is that none of the current justices would get grandfathered in, so you would force the longest serving off now and replace him. Then in 2 years force off the longest serving and replace him. Keep doing this every 2 years until all 9 are replaced.
At that point the first new justice has served 18 years and has to go.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:41 am to PJinAtl
Democrats are such vile creatures.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:44 am to lake chuck fan
Actually, it would have to be an Amendment. The Constitution says SC Justices are appointed for life.
Honestly, I don’t have an issue with an amendment that limits the SC to 9 justices and gives said Justices an 18 year term limit with automatic rotation every two years. Each president would get to select two Justices each term.
There would have to be language that each President appoints two Justices only. If the Court has to operate with less than 9 justices because someone dies after the current President has already appointed two, so be it.
Biden does not want to go down the immunity path. Every president would end up in jail or being sued in civil court.
Honestly, I don’t have an issue with an amendment that limits the SC to 9 justices and gives said Justices an 18 year term limit with automatic rotation every two years. Each president would get to select two Justices each term.
There would have to be language that each President appoints two Justices only. If the Court has to operate with less than 9 justices because someone dies after the current President has already appointed two, so be it.
Biden does not want to go down the immunity path. Every president would end up in jail or being sued in civil court.
This post was edited on 7/29/24 at 10:48 am
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:48 am to Jjdoc
How about we do a basic vote for Congressional term limits before asking them to vote on an amendment for SCOTUS term limits.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:48 am to I20goon
And this ^^^
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:51 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Biden is also calling for a constitutional amendment declaring that presidents do not have immunity from criminal prosecution for any crimes committed while in office, following the Supreme Court’s July ruling granting Donald Trump immunity for “official acts” he committed as president.
Meaningless platitudes. The result would simply be every president pardons himself on the way out the door.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:that would not protect them from state statute prosecution.
Meaningless platitudes. The result would simply be every president pardons himself on the way out the door.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 10:57 am to Jjdoc
Red meat for his few remaining fans. A constitutional amendment require a tremendous amount of time and effort. Even if he was serious, it couldn't happen in 6 months.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:00 am to La Place Mike
quote:
I don't think he really wants to go there.
I don't imagine he cares. Won't be long until Vegas has odds on him leaving the white house in a coffin
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:00 am to SammyTiger
Not true at all when it comes to the SCOTUS.
It's true for congress.
It's true for congress.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:27 am to Bamatab
2 x 9 = 18 using traditional mathematics. So conceivably 2 term Presidents could have an inordinate impact and 2 termed and a VP who wins could have an 8 justice impact.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:30 am to Jjdoc
How in The he hell can anyone, regardless of party preference think this is acceptable?
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:56 am to Jjdoc
it’s true for Scotus too. As far as the checks and balances go, the check on the Judicial Branch are by far the weakest. Once appointed they have free rein for a lifetime to do whatever. Beholden to neither branch or the people.
If they just die randomly then you can end up with a court for 20 years that doesn’t reflect the people. I don’t think that’s a good thing or not.
With term limits you would know, ok This president is appointing x number of justices this term. I should vote accordingly.
And idk how you can be against any kind of ethical accountability for justices. I understand the potential for abuse, but we’re currently seeing abuse of the lack of ethical standards.
And you can make the terms long. I am fine not turning over new justices every 4 years.
If they just die randomly then you can end up with a court for 20 years that doesn’t reflect the people. I don’t think that’s a good thing or not.
With term limits you would know, ok This president is appointing x number of justices this term. I should vote accordingly.
And idk how you can be against any kind of ethical accountability for justices. I understand the potential for abuse, but we’re currently seeing abuse of the lack of ethical standards.
And you can make the terms long. I am fine not turning over new justices every 4 years.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 11:59 am to SammyTiger
quote:
but we’re currently seeing abuse of the lack of ethical standards.
bullshite. If your little pack of idiots were the majority none of this would be brought up.
Posted on 7/29/24 at 12:04 pm to TDTOM
quote:
bullshite. If your little pack of idiots were the majority none of this would be brought up.
You wouldn’t bring it up if 6 Liberal justices were ramming through changes while taking lavish vacations with George Soros?
Again, something both sides probably think is a good thing in a bubble but both would look at as a power struggle if the other side suggested it.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News