Below is my Hill column on President Joe Biden shifting his position on the Supreme Court and agreeing to “limits” on the Supreme Court. This ran before President Biden finally consented to withdraw from the race. It makes this last ditch effort even more tragic for his legacy. He resisted these calls for 50 years, including roughly four years of his presidency. He only succumbed in the final six months as he struggled to save his candidacy. It did not work, but his pledge will outlast his presidency.
As I mentioned in the column, the ploy might not work and Biden might not make it past the convention. The pledge, however, will remain and now Biden is committed to the ill-conceived legislation. After what I called “succession by defenestration” in yesterday’s column, Vice President Kamala Harris will likely want to show continuity in fulfilling this pledge. Indeed, judging from her past statements, she may double down on pushing for new limits. The irony is that his offer did not close the deal with the party for Biden, but he will now likely seek to fulfill the deal in limiting the Court.
Here is the earlier column (without changes due to the announcement):
This week, President Joe Biden finally named a price. As a growing number of panicked Democrats moved to force him off the ticket before the convention, Biden has offered something that the far left has demanded for years: limiting the Supreme Court.
It was another defining moment for Biden, and it was far from complimentary.
Winston Churchill once purportedly asked an English socialite at a dinner if her principles would prevent her from sleeping with him for 5 million pounds.
The socialite admitted that it would be hard to turn down such a fortune. Churchill then offered five pounds. When his aghast antagonist asked, “What type of woman do you think I am?” Churchill replied “We’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
This week, Biden finally stopped haggling and set his price.
According to the Washington Post, the president held a Zoom call with the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
He thrilled them by agreeing to “come out with a major initiative on limiting the court.” He added that he was looking to them for support because “I need some help.”
Even the New York Times noted the timing as a shift in his position that would appeal to the far left of his party.
It was another reversal for the president prompted by political expediency like his flipping on the filibuster rule and, years ago, on abortion.
In the 2020 election, many of us were highly critical of Biden for refusing to reveal his position on packing the Supreme Court and other so-called reform proposals. It was one of the major issues in the election, but Biden refused to tell voters where he stood to avoid alienating both moderates and the far left.
Liberal professors, pundits and politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), continued to demand that the court be packed with an instant liberal majority.
During his administration, Biden sought to appease his base by establishing a commission that explored absurd, radical proposals for changing the court. As many of us predicted, Biden waited years and later admitted that he had no intention to pack the court.
He then decided to run for reelection and faced a revolt in his party, including hysteria over his dismal polling numbers.
If those numbers were 10 points higher, the Supreme Court might be safe for another 10 years. However, it is now just another price for power.
In decades of public service, Biden has shown an impressive moral and political flexibility. He has shifted on almost every major issue as polls made his earlier positions unpopular, or when trying to appeal to a larger Democratic constituency.
From abortion to gun rights to criminal justice, Biden does not allow principle to stand in the way of politics, and the politics today could not be more dire.
What is most striking about a term limits proposal is that it is completely removed from the substance of the left’s complaints. Ironically, while many believe that President Biden is too enfeebled to serve as president, no one has credibly made that claim about the older justices.
Oral arguments show that members such as Justice Clarence Thomas are active and impressive in questioning counsel in oral argument. One can certainly disagree with Thomas’s jurisprudential views, but there is no basis to question his mental acuity.
The irony is crushing. Faced with calls for him to step aside due to his own cognitive decline, Biden is seeking to win reelection by pushing aside justices who are clearly more mentally fit for their own positions.
Term limits would hit conservatives harder than liberals on the court. It is reminiscent of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s transparent and nonsensical 1937 effort to appoint a new justice for any justice who reaches the age of 70 and refuses to resign.
It just so happened that the age rule would negate the elderly “Four Horsemen” who were standing in the way of his New Deal legislation and allow him to instantly pack the court with six new Democratically-selected members.
When the court suddenly began to approve his programs in what was called “the switch in time that saved nine,” Democrats dropped the scheme.
Biden appears set to try to limit the court through legislation rather than a constitutional amendment since he knows that he could never get an amendment through Congress or the requisite three-quarters of state legislatures.
It is not clear whether the new scheme would pass constitutional muster. Ultimately, it would have to be reviewed by . . . you guessed it . . . the Supreme Court.
The Biden legislation will likely be no more consequential than his Supreme Court commission. But it will be a cathartic moment for the far left, and it dangles the prospect of other changes, including court packing, if Democrats can secure both houses of Congress.
Those calls will only increase as advocates call for changing the court “by any means necessary.” We have already seen protesters harass justices at their homes and law professors encouraging the mob to get “more aggressive” in targeting individual justices.
The saddest aspect of this announcement is not what it says about the Supreme Court. The court was designed by the Framers to withstand such attacks. It was designed for this very moment.
The saddest aspect is what it says about a president who is done haggling. With a mutiny building in his party, President Biden is signaling that everything must go in a political Black Friday clearance.
The Supreme Court is just the latest political commodity. But Biden has to wonder if this is all worth the prize even if he is able to make it beyond the Democratic National Convention.
Tell us this, Mr. President: When the haggling is over, what will be left of your legacy beyond your final asking price?
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Just had to add this regarding the purported Winston Churchill quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
(I’d’ve guessed George Bernard Shaw.)
Moral and political flexibility seems to be the norm in today’s Washington though Joe Biden has arguably exemplified it more than most. It was rather painful to watch Biden powerlessly attempt to appease what he thought was his base in order to forestall the looming coup de grace by betraying clear constitutional governance policies. In contrast and in another bygone era, Grover Cleveland was quite willing to stand on principle (tariffs in this case) despite losing political support for his presidency. Other examples of modern politicians exhibiting moral flexibility include a 2003 John Kerry quote where he quite unabashedly stated, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”. Also rebranding of bills such as the “Inflation Reduction Act” is remarked on without the slightest embarrassment despite the complete absence of any evidence in support of that name.
Congress can not impose age limits on federal judges – they are constitutionally appointed for life.
Congress can not impose a code of conduct on federal judges – that would violate separation of powers.
SCOTUS would likely strike down such a law 9-0
These are changes that would require a constitutional amendment.
Regardless, We should not be messing with the Supreme court. If anything we should look to reduce its size to 7 or 5.
What we need is a US Superior Court.
That functions much as the Supreme court does – except that it is inferior to the supreme court.
That should have atleast two justices representing each circuit and should hear cases in panels of 5 round robin selected jurists.
They should sit between circuit courts of appeals and the supreme court.
This would reduce the case load on the Supreme court,
This would NOT require a constitutional amendment.
This would function much like the supreme court – dealing with circuit splits and constitutional issues.
But like the Supreme court not obligated to take a case. But taking 2-3 times as many cases as the supreme court.
Conversely the supreme court would likely take about 1/2 to 1/3 the cases it currently takes.
But that is my idea.
This would also somewhat depoliticize the courts.
This would be a large enough number of jurists that neither party could effectively stack it.
Most of the time it would make a decision and that decision would end the case. It would mitigate the effect of left leaning circuits.
It would make decisions that bound all circuits.
And on those rare occasions the US superior court got it wrong the US supreme court would still be there to correct the matter.
As a rule – whether in the congress, the courts of the executive – more layers favor conservatism.
Conservatism is inherently about making government change harder – because things that have worked – even badly ougth not be tossed out easily as the “new” thing is likely worse.
It seems likely that Republicans will win the house and the senate and the WH this election.
the GOP should respond to Democrat efforts to “stack the court” by seeking to do exactly that. Appoint 3 more “conservative” justices.
That should make future democratic efforts to stack the court really hard.
The so-called GOP has already done two thirds of what John Say asks for. See my note from earlier today. The Republicans already lead the Democrats in Supreme Court stacking by a score of 2-0.
That, in very large part, is what has led Democrats to advocate counter-stacking — really an attempt to UN-stack what the Republicans have already done. That fact makes ridiculous any attempt by the right wing to claim any moral high ground or respect for institutional tradition on this issue.
Gordon, you seem to have difficulty with a conservative majority, but do you remember the decades of liberal majorities where the Court became legislators because Democrats could not get what they wanted from Congress?
I have difficulty with anyone who gets where they are by brazenly violating fair procedure, as was done in the case of the Supreme Court stacking by Republicans in 2016 and 2017. It seems ironic to see Republicans outraged when some Democrats try, albeit so far without much success, to push back.
And since you bring up judicial legislation: The Supreme Court is still legislating — now even more than ever — but for the other side. And, of course, there’s its recent 5-4 decision (which Justice Barrett did not join), gratuitously repealing part of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, all without the proper repeal process mandated by the Constitution itself — a decision that took a lot of chutzpah, in my opinion, especially since it came from justices who claimed to be “originalists” and “textualists.” And apparently there’s nothing to prevent the Court from getting away with it.
We can check the history books to see which party does the most “stacking” and which party canceled the filibuster rule along with common decency. Let’s start with Bork, from which we get the term, being Borked. Travel back in time: What did FDR try to do? I am sure you remember. Then, we can move ahead to the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas. Those are three big ones. What the Republicans did, though you might not like it, was within the law and the norms. The Democrat actions in those three cases were despicable.
I won’t deal with your claim of section 3 of the 14th amendment because if one loves this country, they don’t try to stretch the law (Civil War)and pervert it to win an election. Democrats have a tendency to do that, which is why suddenly Trump was indicted in multiple states for non-crimes. Republicans aren’t ruthless enough to make claims for impeachment based on false allegations and testimony. While your first statement might only mean a difference of opinion, this present one represents TDS.
I must have hit a raw nerve, seeing as how you brought up so many new topics which were beside the point. If I ever feel like arguing about the relative merits of the filibuster rule, which is not even mentioned in the Constitution, or the Trump indictments, or the Trump impeachments, or the Trump financial fraud or other Trump legal problems, I’ll comment on those topics in other threads which focus on them.
As for Supreme Court stacking, which was the topic of the current post and my comments, here’s a little more history and some basic arithmetic:
FDR DIDN’T END UP STACKING THE COURT. See my original comment from yesterday at 11:25 AM, which you may have overlooked.
So as of the end of FDR’s administration, the stacking score was still 0-0.
AS FOR ROBERT BORK: He was given a Senate hearing, and an up-or-down vote, but some Senators were so put off by his answers, including his extreme views limiting the antitrust laws to protect corporate power, while removing limitations on executive power, that a majority of Senators voted against confirmation. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Or as you put it, it was “within the law and the norms.” See Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which provides for nomination by the President of “Judges of the supreme Court,” subject to “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” In other words, Bork got a hearing and an up-or-down vote, and by a vote of 58-42 the Senate voted not to give its consent.
And then, of course, the President nominated another conservative in Bork’s place. That one withdrew after admitting drug use, and then the President nominated a third conservative in his place, who received a hearing and an up-or-down vote, and was confirmed. As you may know, that Justice later ended up writing the main opinion in one of the masterpieces of far-right judicial legislation and judicial overreach, the Citizens United case.
So even though that Justice did more than his share to put democracy up for sale to the highest corporate bidder, from a court-stacking perspective the score was still 0-0.
AS FOR CLARENCE THOMAS: He was also given a Senate hearing, and an up-or-down vote, and in his case he was confirmed. Although he called it a “lynching,” and you do too, he came out of it better off than a lot of lynching victims, with a Supreme Court salary and, from what we’ve been reading lately, plenty of opportunity to take in more on the side.
But from a court-stacking perspective, the score was still 0-0.
AS FOR MERRICK GARLAND: By contrast to Bork and Thomas, Garland never got a hearing or an up-or-down vote. In other words, there was no “advice and consent,” or any chance to get it. Apparently you’re happy with the result, but the process or lack thereof violated the clear intent of Article II of the Constitution, as quoted above, and was not “within the law and the norms.” Not following the rules is also known as “cheating.”
By improperly denying the Obama administration a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote on the Garland nomination, the right wing stacked the Court by one vote. The following year, the illegitimate nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch to fill the stolen slot stacked the Court by another right-wing vote. So after the Garland debacle, the court-stacking score was 2-0 in favor of the right wing.
So with the right wing having stacked the Supreme Court by two votes, and 70 to 80 percent of the Supreme Court’s judicial legislating and judicial overreach in the last several decades having come from the right-wing faction of the Court, it’s ironic to hear right-wing complaints about court-stacking, judicial legislating and judicial overreach.
AS FOR SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT: I actually agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to let the Colorado court unilaterally take Trump off the state’s ballot. But five members of the Supreme Court went way beyond that and simply announced, before the issue was even properly before them, the Court’s judicial repeal of the 14th Amendment’s requirement that it would take “a vote of two-thirds of each House” to waive the rules. That is judicial legislation, and overruling the Constitution takes even more nerve than overruling Congress, which the Supreme Court has also been doing a lot of lately.
But because known historical facts, basic arithmetic, and the plain English of the Constitution all contradict you, you fall back on personal attacks as to whether or not I “love this country,” and a reference to “TDS.” As to your view that the 14th Amendment expired+ after the end of the Civil War, that notion is so jaw-dropping that I don’t know what to say in response. Whether the 14th Amendment is still in effect – or should be – is definitely a topic on which you and I do have a difference of opinion. Yes, I think the 14th Amendment should still be in effect, and no, you’ve made it clear that you don’t.
Apparently you don’t think Article II of the Constitution applies anymore either. We might as well leave it at that.
Have a nice day.
“I must have hit a raw nerve, seeing as how you brought up so many new topics which were beside the point.”
Gordon, you didn’t hit a nerve but revealed your lack of historical knowledge. How could you forget that historical figure FDR when discussing stacking the Supreme Court? Being blind or ignorant is the only answer.
“FDR DIDN’T END UP STACKING THE COURT. ”
He didn’t, but again, you demonstrate your lack of historical knowledge because it is obvious you don’t know why he didn’t have to.
“So as of the end of FDR’s administration, the stacking score was still 0-0.”
No! FDR assaulted the founding ideas behind checks and balances. What you seem to approve of is putting a gun to a man’s head and asking for his wallet. When he gives it to you, you refuse to believe it is theft. That is stupid.
You write a lot but need to gain more knowledge of history. That makes me suspicious of who you are. I presume we will be sure shortly.
Someone who thinks that the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II of the US Constitution have expired isn’t in a very strong position to lecture anyone else about history.
But OK, since you like gun metaphors, here’s one: Your statement about FDR is like arguing that because someone waved a gun 87 years ago, without firing it, that means that someone else now is free to actually shoot people if they want to, having shot two of them already in 2016 and 2017.
FDR didn’t stack the Court, and he didn’t break any rules. Seeing as how you’re a history expert, I’m sure you know that Congress had previously changed the number of justices on the Court about half a dozen times, so there was obviously no rule against asking Congress to change the number again; in fact the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, specifically allows the President to “recommend” measures to Congress. And there was no rule against Congress considering the request; in fact, Article I specifically makes it Congress’ job to consider legislation. As an expert on history, or if you even read the news, you probably know that Presidents routinely ask Congress to consider legislation, and sometimes Congress considers it, and sometimes Congress even passes it, although they didn’t that time.
As your rationale for ignoring the Constitution, you seem very offended by FDR’s motivations. But I wonder if, given your fastidious sensitivity to his impoliteness, you are equally offended by the right wing’s continuous stonewalling of appointments of Federal District and Circuit Court judges, when the right wing happened to be stuck with a President they didn’t like. That stonewalling was impolite, it was hyper-partisan, it wasn’t good for the country, it went on for a long time, and it involved many more than two judgeships. Being that you’re a history expert, you doubtless know what I’m talking about.
So after setting the issue up as a street fight and breaking the rules to stack the Supreme Court by two votes in 2016 and 2017, I take it from your comments that the right-wing court stackers still get the vapors and the poor fellows feel martyred and aggrieved because someone else, 87 years ago, found a way to use the rules to the country’s advantage without even breaking them.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has become the number one institutional barrier to solving this country’s problems. These days, the Court seems to consistently favor corporate power over real people. The Court overrules Congress fairly often and even the Constitution itself sometimes, and the Court carried out yet another major grab to increase its own power while reducing that of Congress, within the last month or two. By now, merely un-stacking the two slots that were stolen by right-wing cheating would not be nearly enough to fully correct the damage that’s already been done.
In order to do a thorough clean-up, it would be necessary to restructure the system in a way that (1) reduces the power of individual Supreme Court justices and (2) insulates them from partisan influence, while (3) making it difficult for factions in Congress to routinely gridlock judicial appointments. The first item is the most important.
That would probably require a constitutional amendment, and the right wing would probably do everything they could think of to block it, seeing as how they’ve already had so much success rigging the system as it is. And based on past experience, they wouldn’t stick to any rules if they could get away with breaking them.
I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for such an amendment to pass – the heat death of the Universe may come sooner – but apparently I haven’t quite given up all hope, seeing as how I’ve bothered to comment on this topic at all, and seeing as how I keep responding to yours. Another one or two of these exchanges, and you and I will practically be pen pals.
“Someone who thinks that the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II of the US Constitution have expired isn’t in a very strong position to lecture anyone else about history.”
Gordon, I note you weren’t satisfied with your general ignorance of American history and added lying to your repertoire. At least you did it up front so everyone could immediately know what you are. I said Democrats are stretching and perverting the amendment to win an election. That is very different from your accusation.
“But OK, since you like gun metaphors”
Again, you are lying. I neither like nor dislike gun metaphors.
“Your statement about FDR is like arguing that because someone waved a gun 87 years ago, without firing it, ”
Let’s see how that metaphor works, though I find it stupid. FDR tried to stack the Court, succeeding in having the Court bend to his wishes. A person who waves a gun as a threat, like FDR, goes to jail. FDR wasn’t arrested.
“As your rationale for ignoring the Constitution,”
This is the third time you have lied. That makes you a liar, along with someone who doesn’t know his American history. I don’t ignore the Constitution, but I know when someone is perverting it.
“Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has become the number one institutional barrier to solving this country’s problems.”
You are ignorant of the separation of powers. The solution to your conundrum is for those you support to write legislation that passes Constitutional review or amend the Constitution.
” These days, the Court seems to consistently favor corporate power over real people.”
Yes, and Kelo v. City of New London was a grievous mistake by the Supreme Court, where the left side of the Court felt eminent domain could take private property from one private holder of land and give it to another.
The rest of your comments are more of the same, so instead of commenting here, you should pay a tutor to help you better understand the subject matter.
Kelo v. City of New London didn’t have much to do with protecting corporate power, one way or the other. If you read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo carefully, its effect was to leave eminent domain to the individual states and their courts, as had been the practice in the past. (The Supreme Court of Connecticut had allowed the taking.) As a result of the Kelo decision, some states have amended their state constitutions to prevent eminent domain from benefiting private parties; others haven’t. I would have guessed that you would have wanted the issue left to the states rather than taken over by the Federal courts, but apparently my guess would have been wrong.
No. Gordon. The leftist part of the Supreme Court violated a private right of ownership. They permitted the state to force the sale of property to a ***private*** (not public) concern, and the amount paid represented a price less than the value of the property once sold. In the end, the development never took place.
You have a weird understanding of personal property and personal liberty. In this case, leftist judges on the federal and state level took private property. You don’t have much regard for the DOI or the Constitution.
How does one go from 0-0 to 2-0 without passing through 1-0?
Good question… I tried to explain that in a couple of comments on this thread (the most detailed being the one that started with “I must have hit a raw nerve…”) Please bear with me, and I’ll give it one more try here with more detail:
Before Justice Scalia died, the “conservatives” on the Supreme Court outnumbered the “liberals” by 4-5. Upon the death of Scalia, a conservative, that left the balance at 4-4, with one slot empty. To fill the vacancy, Obama nominated Garland, whom most people considered to be a liberal-leaning moderate, but whom some hard right-wingers now try to label as a “radical” liberal, so if Garland had been confirmed then “moderate-liberals” or “liberals” would have had a 5-4 majority. But the right wing cheated Garland of a hearing and an up-or-down vote, also robbing Obama of the prerogative of making an appointment and having an up-or-down vote on it, so the balance remained at 4-4 with one slot empty when Obama left office.
After Trump took office, of course he did not re-nominate Garland, but he nominated an extreme conservative to fill the same slot. So that made the balance 4-5 in favor of the conservatives. By taking the balance from 5-4 in favor of the liberals, which it would have been if no one had cheated, to 4-5 in favor of the conservatives, the liberals lost one vote and the conservatives gained one vote, compared to where they would have been if the norms had been followed. Together 1 loss to liberals + 1 gain to conservatives = 2 total, effectively a right-wing stacking by two votes.
So to give an exact answer to your question: Starting from a stacking score of 0-0 while Scalia was alive, it became 1-0 in favor of the conservatives when Garland should have received a hearing and an up-or-down vote but didn’t get one, and it became 2-0 for the conservatives when Trump’s nomination to fill the same slot was confirmed. The overall result is that there are now two fewer “liberal” votes, and two more “conservative” votes, on the Court than there would have been if the Constitutional norms had been followed.
I’ve probably been obsessing too much over this for no good purpose because, other than the principle of the thing, it may be too late to matter. In recent months the Supreme Court has issued several shocking decisions which, between them, delete wording from the Constitution, shift the separation of powers by reducing the power of Congress, and (worst-case scenario and I hope I’m wrong about this) lay the theoretical groundwork for a future police state. And (what a surprise!!!) they’ve shifted the separation of powers by greatly increasing the power of the Supreme Court.
Without the two stolen votes, that might not have happened, or at least might not have happened as badly. But now that those cases have been decided, unstacking the stolen votes won’t un-decide them. It would take a Constitutional amendment to fix the worst parts.
It is hard to trust a person who speaks fancy words but has yet to learn American history or the Constitution. Gordon is one of those people. He is nice enough, but his hyperbole is excessive, especially when he is wrong here, and he was proven wrong in almost all his statements.
Gordon is obsessing about the Supreme Court’s rejection of Garland. I’m not sure what he blames it on, but it is clear the Republicans merely followed the pattern created by Democrats.
In 2013, the Democrats had a hard time getting enough votes for the federal judges they wanted, so they used the nuclear option and changed long-standing Senate rules so that a majority of votes would suffice. They didn’t do it for the Supreme Court because, at that time, it wasn’t in their interest.
The Republicans lived through the Democrats’ rejection of their nominees and placed the interests of the people and the Senate ahead of politics. They warned the Democrats, but the Democrats only considered things that granted them more power.
When a Supreme Court nominee came up, the Republicans did to the Democrats what the Democrats did to them and changed the number of votes necessary.
Gordon complains and provides all sorts of meaningless junk and excuses with his whining. He should reflect on what the Democrats did when breaking long-standing accepted practices for a cheap win.
This is the history of the Democrats blaming everyone else for the wrongdoing of the Democrat Party.
In conclusion, after seeing how Garland destroyed his reputation as our present AG, the nation should be thankful that a lawless figure was kept off the Court.
To davidrblock and whoever else might read this:
Since I made a couple of comments regarding court stacking a week ago, S. Meyer has been very outspoken with replies, and I have responded to his, to the point where one sub-thread apparently reached a software maximum. I expect that he will write a reply to this reply also, in order to have the last word.
I stand by everything I’ve said in these comments. If anyone has enough time on their hands to plow past the noise and check the sources, I’m confident they’ll find that my quotes of the US Constitution are accurate, my characterizations of court opinions are consistent with what the opinions actually decided, my statements as to historical facts are accurate, and my arithmetic is correct. Anyone who wades through my comments and his will find that S. Meyer never specifically answered many of my detailed statements at all, resorting instead to personal insults and strident generalities. I expect that fair-minded and reasonable people will be able to tell the difference.
In essence, S. Meyer is implying, without expressly saying, that he believes that the ends justify the means and, because sometimes in the past people, while acting within the rules, have succeeded in getting results that he does not like, it therefore follows that there is nothing wrong with cheating if that will get the world back to how he wants it to be.
It’s questionable whether the world he wants to go back to ever really existed but, even if it did, institutional cheating won’t get us there. The attitude that the end justifies the means has fed the current mistrust and polarization in this country, and nothing good can come of it.
“S. Meyer has been very outspoken with replies, and I have responded to his,”
Gordon, you responded very poorly or not at all.
” I expect that he will write a reply to this reply also, in order to have the last word.” However, since a lot of time has passed, I hope I can get away with this post.
“I stand by everything I’ve said in these comments. ”
Although you were historically wrong and wrong about the Constitution, you stand by those comments. For example, I informed you Kelo was decided by the leftist Supreme Court Justices. Your motto seems to be, don’t do to me what I do to others (Harry Reid, 2013).
” If anyone has enough time on their hands to plow past the noise”
You should have said that if anyone has enough time to plow past my fancy language, hiding the truth, they should note my fancy words are noise that covers the truth.
“and strident generalities.”
Was Kelo a generality? How about 2013 and Harry Reid? Do I have to repeat everything I said?
“In essence, S. Meyer is implying, without expressly saying, that he believes that the ends justify the means”
You started our discussion by trying to make people believe I said things that you created, trying to make them believe I said something I never said. You thought such a mischaracterization was convenient in argument, but that represents your ideology. The ends do not justify the means. I leave the converse entirely to you and those you support
” The attitude that the end justifies the means has fed the current mistrust and polarization in this country, and nothing good can come of it.”
The above is true, and that is why your leftist dreams (unattached to reality) have no place in America.
The argument in the quoted Hill column is self-contradictory, calling FDR’s court-stacking threat “nonsensical” but acknowledging that it worked. Just the threat of stacking, without actual stacking, was enough to get the Court to stop blocking FDR’s New Deal programs. FDR did not actually stack the Court but, far from being a failure, his stacking “attempt” was successful for what it set out to do.
More recently the right wing, which is in it to win and does not play by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, has literally stacked the Court, by violating the long-standing tradition of giving each nominee a hearing and an up-or-down vote. In order to UN-stack the Court, Democrats would need to add two justices — one to fill the slot which Obama was improperly denied, and one to offset the illegitimate nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch to fill that slot.
That would result in 11 justices: 5 liberals or moderates, 5 scorched-earth conservatives, and Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who seems willing to resist some of the worst impulses of the five scorched-earthers, as the tie-breaking swing vote.
Hey partisan hack Gordon, which “liberal or moderate” justice would you say is actually moderate? Why call conservatives “scorched earth” while not labeling far left loons like Sotomayor scorched earth?
I enjoy debating issues and policies and yes, Court cases, but I hate when a liberal idiot creates a false world where it is impossible to debate due to their unreal view of politics.
Who the moderates or liberals would be would depend on who the two justices would be if anyone ever managed to UN-stack the Court, to give the counts I described. Unless that happens, I obviously won’t be able to identify all of them by name. “Scorched-earth” refers to the difference between the others and Barrett. You should read some of the opinions.
It’s sickening to see Democrats who demanded he end his campaign now bending over backwards to praise his “service” to the country. The only service Biden ever engaged in was self-service. When Democrats complain that Trump has no principles, they clearly have no moral high ground given their own party leader.
@RichardGrenell
“No institution or system can control the Democrats.
They do what they want. They don’t care about the law or the rules.
They create Sanctuary Cities to ignore the laws they don’t like, they manipulate intelligence agencies with fake information about their opponents, they talk about adding Supreme Court justices when they don’t control the Courts, they cancel, indict or arrest anyone who stands in their way.
And now they will toss out their own primary election results because the elites don’t like the polls.
They get away with their tactics because the media likes the desired outcome.”
“Holy Kobayashi Maru, Batman!” If at first you don’t succeed……………….restructure the court.
The only question I have is, Where in the constitution is there a means of installing term limits on the Supreme Court? The president had no term limits and required a constitutional amendment to set a 2 term limit. That amendment says nothing about the Supreme Court.
Congress has the power to impeach, and the senate to advise and consent to Justice appointments, and they may set the salary but cannot decrease it while the Justice is on the bench. The appointment is lifetime unless you impeach. There is no direct power in the Constitution to set term limits on another branch of government without an amendment. And if not directly specified as a federal government power in the Constitution then it is not within congress’s means to set terms limits. Conservatives endured decades of overreach by liberal courts and never advocated for term limits, that I am aware of.
You have a conservative court for about 6 years and liberals and progressives are about to explode!
This conservative court is a direct result of the democrats loosening the filibuster for judges. I suppose they never realized that at some point they would be turned out of power and then the change would apply to them. What happened to the long view rather immediate gratification. Also i don’t think the republicans will stand idly by and let it just happen.
“I suppose they never realized that at some point they would be turned out of power and then the change would apply to them.”
As you recognize, Democrats make short-term decisions based on increasing their power. They can destroy but cannot build because their dreams are unreal and don’t last. So far in the Biden administration, they have caused much destruction, but what did they build that will last? Nothing!
One by one, Biden gave away all of his principles, until, at the end, he had nothing to give away but himself.
With his remaining time and remaining mind, he may come to the conclusion he should have governed from the Middle not from the far Left.
Biden never had any principles. Glenn Greenwald did an excellent overview of Biden’s public life.
Even in the early 80’s he was a routine plagerizer.
Biden is the devout catholic that supports abortion up to birth. That is the “principles” of one Joe Biden.
Every government appointment or election should be limited to 12 years…judges, president, senate, congress, etc
Amend the constitution.
The reasons that the constitution ,makes jusges lifetime apointments is specifically to separate them from politics.
They do not run for election and once confirmed they can not easily be removed.
The hope was that would make them care about law more than politics.
boils down to DEMOCRATS want money and will do anything to get it!
Soros, China, etc are funding the democrats and picking people who will DESTROY America
Voting Democrats means you HATE America!
Term limits are not based on reaching a certain age, but rather a duration in office. The idea motivating it is to allow every Presidential 4-year term to get one appointment, but that schedule gets screwed up if there is a death or retirement. It’s hard to improve on the lifetime appointment with retirement on the honor system.
Wow, that is some incredible insight.
It’s obvious from their printed and recorded opinions that all of the members of the “Squad” either don’t know or don’t understand the Constitution. Our republic has no limitations on what intelligence is required of voters or elected officials. This lack of limitations is proven every day by the statements and actions of the Squad. They are simply too dumb to have any responsibilities for management in a merit based organization. Such responsibilities can only fall upon them in the egalitarian Congress, where stupidity is no barrier to advancement.
So now the die is cast, Lets hope that Roberts doesn’t f*ck this up.
Odds are he will.
The extent of Biden’s “moral and political flexibility” exceeds even that of Nixon. It’s almost like he’s telling Jimmy Carter, here, hold my beer
Please watch Glenn Greenwalds video on whether Biden is a “good man”
Biden has NEVER been a good person.