Mr potato head (Biden) endorses 18-year supreme court term limits and ethics reform

[Saltwater60]

Biden, at LBJ Library, blasts Supreme Court and proposes major changes — The Washington Post

President urges term limits and ethics code, saying they are needed to restore confidence. Conservatives say he just doesn’t like the court’s recent rulings.

apple.news

 

[GOPerfect]

Not really news worthy.

Nothing bit words spoken by a feable, 3/4 dead guy.

These ideas, most would need to be a Constitutional amendment.

The wants that are not amendment needed, would be struck down by the same court that he is shitting on.

 

[Jmac00]

Biden Proposes Supreme Court Reform on Anniversary of Civil Rights Act

‘We need these reforms to ensure trust in the courts [and] preserve the system of checks and balances that are vital to our democracy,’ President Biden said.

www.theepochtimes.com

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one,” the president wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.
According to a White House official, President Biden will call for Congress to back term limits for Supreme Court justices and a code of ethics enforceable by the legislative branch.

He also will propose an amendment to limit the extent of presidential immunity afforded by the Constitution, proposing that former presidents be granted no immunity for crimes committed while in office.

does this fucking shithead realize this INCLUDES HIM. Or does he actually believe he hasn't committed any crimes. This means, anyone can go after, even Jimmy Carter, for things he did as President. Can Monica Lewinski, and Anita Broderick go after Bill Clinton? Can a few dozen children sue Briben for sexual harassment??

interesting that when SCOTUS was liberal, no one wanted to do all these things. As soon as the SCOTUS went conservative, Holy shit, everything must change? idiots, Our government is nothing but idiots

 

[dwa12479]

Who's listening to the ramblings of a senile niwit?

 

[John Stark]

Who's listening to the ramblings of a senile niwit?

Xiden is only saying what he's told to say.

The backroom powers that be in the Demscum party always use worthless mouthpieces to project their intentions.

That would be a good thing for normal American citizens, if anyone cared enough to do anything about it. Fore warned is fore armed.

The Republicuck politicos certainly could care less, based on how and what they vote for, and how little they ever accomplish to get us back to the "Republican" form of government that is supposedly "guaranteed" in out Constitution.

Meanwhile the wrecking ball that is smashing our nation to pieces swings apace, and the hacks that are voted into office from either party moves us further along the government/corporate fascism that our grandfathers were fighting against in WW2.

Last time I checked, "Plutocracy" wasn't the form of government we are promised in our founding documents.

Most of the people in government are nothing but political whores, and our political masters love being able to let us know in advance how they are inevitably going to usurp our Rights and reduce us to the status of serfs.

A talking puppet like Xiden is the perfect way to humiliate a once free nation, right to our faces.

After all, they cheated him into office in the first place in an obvious fraudulent election.

Hail Emperor Kameltoe! Xiden will be very proud to inaugurate his hand picked replacement.

 

[Celt]

Not really news worthy.

Nothing bit words spoken by a feable, 3/4 dead guy.

These ideas, most would need to be a Constitutional amendment.

The wants that are not amendment needed, would be struck down by the same court that he is shitting on.

I disagree, he is 99/100ths dead, if its not already "weekend at Bidens".



Also, lets start with term limits for all elected officials first, then we can talk about appointed positions.

Its just funny how if the scotus was less traditional and more progressive he would never suggeat such a thing.

The problem is that the court should be more traditional in its interpretations of the law, you cant just change something because you feel like it.

 

[GOPerfect]

I disagree, he is 99/100ths dead, if its not already "weekend at Bidens".



Also, lets start with term limits for all elected officials first, then we can talk about appointed positions.

Its just funny how if the scotus was less traditional and more progressive he would never suggeat such a thing.

The problem is that the court should be more traditional in its interpretations of the law, you cant just change something because you feel like it.

I was trying to be kind.....

 

[Brawny71]

Biden, at LBJ Library, blasts Supreme Court and proposes major changes — The Washington Post

President urges term limits and ethics code, saying they are needed to restore confidence. Conservatives say he just doesn’t like the court’s recent rulings.

apple.news

What he is advocating is a change to Constitution. It can't be done (legally) by his pen. This is all a political stunt to make false claims just in time for November. Decisions by the Court are place holders for the legislature to change laws. He Himself sat for over 47 years without doing a thing with their biggest complaint this year. Their banner child RBG even said that one was a weak decision with no Constitutional basis.

It is all showmanship for the Sheeple.

 

[Saltwater60]

What he is advocating is a change to Constitution. It can't be done (legally) by his pen. This is all a political stunt to make false claims just in time for November. Decisions by the Court are place holders for the legislature to change laws. He Himself sat for over 47 years without doing a thing with their biggest complaint this year. Their banner child RBG even said that one was a weak decision with no Constitutional basis.

It is all showmanship for the Sheeple.

I’m not sure it’s simply a political stunt as they have been beating up on the conservative side of the court for awhile now. They are brainwashing people to believe this is needed.

 

[Brawny71]

I’m not sure it’s simply a political stunt as they have been beating up on the conservative side of the court for awhile now. They are brainwashing people to believe this is needed.

Exactly my point. Talk, create the drama/panic with no action or goal other then to undercut one of the branches. No fact needed as everyone only reads a five minute cut from a controlled narrative. Just in time for Nov then forgotten for four years or until convenient. I mean, you remember their concern after the volitile words and judges houses and family being threatened right? But hey let’s get on all this now. As a thought let’s apply the ethics part to the exec, legislative first. Term limits to the legislative to try them out first.

 

[RedBreast21]

Ethics reform starts in the White House. We can restore that in NOV.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Ethics reform starts in the White House. We can restore that in NOV.

Ethics reform will need to involve arms at this point. Or, a lot of fucking rope.

 

[Celt]

I was trying to be kind.....

Lol, i know i was trying to be funny

 

[Far king]

What he is advocating is a change to Constitution. It can't be done (legally) by his pen. This is all a political stunt to make false claims just in time for November. Decisions by the Court are place holders for the legislature to change laws. He Himself sat for over 47 years without doing a thing with their biggest complaint this year. Their banner child RBG even said that one was a weak decision with no Constitutional basis.

It is all showmanship for the Sheeple.

The old fart is trying to remain relevant while Kamala is getting all the attention.

 

[Brawny71]

The old fart is trying to remain relevant while Kamala is getting all the attention.

Make no mistake, he is adding to the narrative.

 

[CNYJohn]

How about term limits for the shitheads in the senate and house of representatives first?

And what you got against the beloved Mr potato head toy?

Please don't disparage Mr Potato Head

 

[Jmac00]

How about term limits for the shitheads in the senate and house of representatives first?

And what you got against the beloved Mr potato head toy?

Please don't disparage Mr Potato Head

THATS EXACTLY RIGHT

No Changes to the SCOTUS *until* we get ENFORCABLE ethics rules and term limits for congress

 

[FP1201]

does this fucking shithead realize this INCLUDES HIM. Or does he actually believe he hasn't committed any crimes. This means, anyone can go after, even Jimmy Carter, for things he did as President. Can Monica Lewinski, and Anita Broderick go after Bill Clinton? Can a few dozen children sue Briben for sexual harassment??

interesting that when SCOTUS was liberal, no one wanted to do all these things. As soon as the SCOTUS went conservative, Holy shit, everything must change? idiots, Our government is nothing but idiots

No sir, they are not idiots they are evil cited by the absence of God and His Moral Law...they remind me of the Clergy that sexually abuse then cry forgiveness for their self indulgences.

Six to Eight Terms in the House.
Two in the Senate.
Two as POTUS.
I think Judges terms max out at twelve before requiring re-election..."Lifetime" appointments in ANY Government are bullshit and ripe for abuse.

 

[Jmac00]

When the court ruled in favor of liberals, it was all good. No problem.

But when the Potato disagrees with the court, woah, look out, in that case, all of this must go. It must all be dismantled and rebuild in a liberal way.

RBG was on the court for 27 years. William Douglas served for 37 years.

 

[jimc]

Where did 18 years come from? Is that the sweet spot to get rid of the justices he doesn't like?

 

[OwnTheRide]

"Lifetime" appointments in ANY Government are bullshit and ripe for abuse.

You're not wrong. Yet, part of the reasoning behind lifetime appointments for justices and judges is to enable them keep politics out of their decisions, and I think this is a good idea.

Note that I said "enable." I'm not saying it always works. Certainly, having half or more of all SCOTUS decisions split along the ideological divide makes it clear that it's not perfect.

 

[FP1201]

You're not wrong. Yet, part of the reasoning behind lifetime appointments for justices and judges is to enable them keep politics out of their decisions, and I think this is a good idea.

Note that I said "enable." I'm not saying it always works. Certainly, having half or more of all SCOTUS decisions split along the ideological divide makes it clear that it's not perfect.

I generally agree, but the issue becomes "Legislating from the Bench" and passing Judgements on personal convictions opposed to the spirit and intention of the Laws they did not write, but are tasked with enforcing.
Example: County Judges and Handgun Licenses; How many stories have you read about where Judge in one County won't sign off on Carry, while the one in the next will not only sign off, but give you a purchase coupon in advance so yo don't have to make two trips to the Clerk?
If you cannot make them accountable to the Community they represent, then they can pretty well do as they damn well please and no one short of a Judicial Conduct Review for abuse of Office can do a damn thing about it. (besides appeal the decision to a higher Court IF they'll take the Case and YOU have the Time and Money)

"Absolute power results in absolute corruption" and even those sworn to neutrality, fairness, and Justice are not perfect nor above reproach.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I generally agree, but the issue becomes "Legislating from the Bench" and passing Judgements on personal convictions opposed to the spirit and intention of the Laws they did not write, but are tasked with enforcing.
Example: County Judges and Handgun Licenses; How many stories have you read about where Judge in one County won't sign off on Carry, while the one in the next will not only sign off, but give you a purchase coupon in advance so yo don't have to make two trips to the Clerk?
If you cannot make them accountable to the Community they represent, then they can pretty well do as they damn well please and no one short of a Judicial Conduct Review for abuse of Office can do a damn thing about it. (besides appeal the decision to a higher Court IF they'll take the Case and YOU have the Time and Money)

"Absolute power results in absolute corruption" and even those sworn to neutrality, fairness, and Justice are not perfect nor above reproach.

I think we're pretty much in agreement. I want to point out two things:

1. There are no lifetime appointments for Judges in NY.
2. County judges (who typically serve as licensing officers) are elected to 10-year terms and subject to re-elections.

Yet, despite that, the problems you outline persist.

My point here is twofold:

1. There may be value in lifetime appointments, as it enables a judge or justice to set aside political considerations when making decisions... but there is certainly no guarantee that it always works.
2. Term limits and partisan elections have not fixed the problems you point out here in NY, so these policies are clearly not a magic bullet.

 

[FP1201]

I think we're pretty much in agreement. I want to point out two things:

1. There are no lifetime appointments for Judges in NY.
2. County judges (who typically serve as licensing officers) are elected to 10-year terms and subject to re-elections.

Yet, despite that, the problems you outline persist.

My point here is twofold:

1. There may be value in lifetime appointments, as it enables a judge or justice to set aside political considerations when making decisions... but there is certainly no guarantee that it always works.
2. Term limits and partisan elections have not fixed the problems you point out here in NY, so these policies are clearly not a magic bullet.

My thoughts are a generalization and my concerns are primarily NY, while Potato Head is taking aim (that he has ZERO CHANCE of getting) at SCOTUS simply because Conservatives hold the majority.
Those dismissing the idea of Term Limits contend it takes a few terms to get past the learning curve with a House term being two years...
The premise of the President being allowed only two terms was to keep the Office from gaining too much power, and was written by those already in power and not subject to the same constraints.
Government has largely forgotten, err, ignored the FACT the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to CONSTRAIN Government, but we know that don't we.

 

[IrishMick]

Says the knob who has spent his entire adult career in political office. Look in the mirror. (mic drop)

 

[IrishMick]

The democratic republic is in practice and possibly in theory an incredibly flawed and poor systems to be devised. Yet it, along with a free market economy, remains one of the best systems to ever be implemented.

 

[Grimscale]

I generally agree, but the issue becomes "Legislating from the Bench" and passing Judgements on personal convictions opposed to the spirit and intention of the Laws they did not write, but are tasked with enforcing.

So who makes sure they don't do that?
Who is the ultimate authority on the Constitution who can tell the S.C. Justices they were wrong?
Who can be trusted to rule based on facts and not emotion or opinion?

 

[dwa12479]

Pretty ironic statement from a guy who's been in DC for a half century and has used his political power to enrich himself and his family to the become VERY wealthy on the backs of the taxpayers. Scum.

 

[FP1201]

So who makes sure they don't do that?
Who is the ultimate authority on the Constitution who can tell the S.C. Justices they were wrong?
Who can be trusted to rule based on facts and not emotion or opinion?

I suspect it's easier to vote them out than rely on Judicial Review by their peers/superiors...so little of it happens that its a big flash in the pan story (unless its a Republican/Republican Appointed Judge, that cow gets milked)
Accountability is everything in Government and those comprising it; attrition via voting, elections, or outright removal tends to keep people from amassing and abusing Power...I hold no absolute answers, only a few of the questions we should be asking and acting on.