Below is my column in the New York Post on President Joe Biden’s call to reform the Supreme Court by ending lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices.
Here is the column:
President (and Supreme Court Chief Justice) William Howard Taft once said “presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”
But not if Joe Biden has his way. Indeed, both the president and Court as we know it could be gone.
In a failed attempt to save his nomination, Biden offered to “reform” the Court by imposing an 18-year term limit that would jettison the three most senior conservative justices.
With only six months left in his presidency, Biden’s efforts are likely to fail, but, unfortunately, could set the stage for activists under a Harris Administration in seeking to change the Court forever.
For more than 50 years, Biden staunchly refused to play politics with the Supreme Court and support calls for “reforms” from the left of his party.
For a politician who has long been criticized for changing positions with the polls on issues from abortion to criminal justice to gun rights, the Court was one of the few areas of true principle for Biden.
Even though he refused to answer questions on packing the Court in the 2020 election, he ultimately rejected the call as president.
Yet Biden’s final principle fell this month when facing the premature and involuntary end of his candidacy. Faced with being a one-term president, the Supreme Court would have to be sacrificed.
Biden opted for the least of the evils in pushing for term limits rather than court packing.
It was the more popular option for Biden to yield on. Voters have always loved term limits.
The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 67% of Americans, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans, support a proposal to set finite terms for justices.
But there were few law professors and even fewer Democratic members clamoring for term limits until conservatives secured a stable majority on the Court. Then, suddenly, the Court had to be “reformed” without delay.
It is no accident that the first three justices who would be term limited off the Court are conservatives: Clarence Thomas (after 33 years on the Court), Chief Justice John Roberts (after 19 years), and Justice Samuel Alito (after 18 years).
Think, however, about the iconic decisions we would have lost with term limits in place. Liberal Justice Williams Douglas’s 36 years on the Court would have literally been cut in half. He would have been kicked off in 1957.
His famous opinions like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), striking down bans on contraceptives, would not have been written — an ironic result for those seeking limits after the Court’s ruling in Dobbs.
Likewise, liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s tenure would have ended in 2011 before she wrote her famous dissent Shelby County v. Holder (2013), defending voting rights.
Anthony Kennedy’s term would have ended in 2011 rather than 2018, before he wrote opinions such as United States v. Windsor, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Obviously, other justices could have written opinions in these cases, but the point is that many justices wrote their best opinions after 18 years on the Court.
Moreover, the Framers clearly wanted these positions as lifetime appointments as an added protection against political pressure or influence.
For more than two centuries, presidents have struggled with the Supreme Court, but none (until now) have attempted to end life tenure on the Court.
Presidents have served as the firewall for the anger and radicalism that has periodically engulfed the Court.
Now President Biden is leading the mob for changing this institution for the first time since its founding.
It is a testament to what I call “an age of rage” in my new book. After years of supporting the Court when it was setting aside conservative precedent, liberals now want the Court changed to dump or dilute the majority.
It is unlikely to end there. After sending Thomas, Roberts, and Alito packing, many want to go further and pack the Court itself.
Democratic leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have called for outright court packing — a proposal that Vice President Kamala Harris has suggested that she might support.
Where Biden is a political opportunist in belatedly joining this movement, Harris is a true believer from the far left.
If she is elected, the Congress is still likely to be closely divided. That will only increase pressure to convert the Court into an alternative avenue for social and political reform.
Harvard professor Michael Klarman warned that all of the plans to change the country were ultimately dependent on packing the court.
With the 2020 election, he stated that Democrats could change the election system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.”
Notably, if Biden were to seek this change as a legislative matter without a constitutional amendment, future Congresses could short terms further from 18 to 8 years or even less.
In his speech, Biden declared that he wanted the membership of the Court changed with greater “regularity.”
If Congress has this authority, it could change the occupants of the Court faster than a South Beach timeshare condo.
That is clearly the opposite of what the Framers intended, but Biden insists that these times are different and democracy will only be safeguarded by attacking one of our core stabilizing institutions.
According to the Washington Post, the president made his pledge in a Zoom call to the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). It did not succeed in resuscitating his candidacy.
The pledge will be dead on arrival with Congress. What is left is a King Lear-like tragedy of a president, betrayed by those closest to him, and wandering the land for continued relevance.
History will show a pitiful figure who offered up the Court as the cost of staying in power, only to lose his candidacy and his legacy.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and 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.”
Unlike Richard Nixon who lived long enough to see his legacy rebound from the Watergate scandal, Biden is likely to permanently leave us soon after he leaves the White House. His legacy, for what it’s worth, is that he leaves a candidate, Kamala Harris, badly wounded by her close association with and influence on Biden for the past 3 and a half years. She cannot run away from policies that she supported and the president implemented and her role in setting the stage for 19 percent inflation was pivotal as she cast the deciding vote in Congress that produced the spending fury causing inflation. Likewise, as much as the media are trying to reconstruct the truth, she is now and forever to be known as the “border czar,” and inherits the political fallout from this, too. The “honeymoon” is almost over and the realization that the bride is not what some would have us believe will shortly become apparent. She will be the force that gives Trump a 45-state victory in November.
Biden pulled the Democratic Socialist Party towards the middle left, Harris is full bore Marxist. Let her own actions define her, she’s a dolt but also a communist in Socialist clothing.
Don’t blame all of Kamala Sutra’s shortcomings on Biden, she has more than enough faults of her own to induce a landslide victory for her opponents.
Biden “facing the premature and involuntary end of his candidacy.”
The party that brought us: You can’t vote for Trump — now tells its own voters (via a soft coup): Or for Biden, either.
Whatever the D’s concern is, it’s not for democracy.
Your last line could read…..He hopes he loses his legacy!
The current Supreme Court is the best one in history. This last term has shown:
1. They are taking up the hard cases
2. They are taking on an enormous workload
3. Individual Justices defy political pundits’ predictions, and are independent thinkers
4. Activist plaintiffs are sent packing across the street to Congress where policy debate belongs (mifepristone)
Of course, nobody is getting everything they want from this Court. The Constitution doesn’t take sides, it’s the neutral, powerful referee there to keep power from becoming over-concentrated (Chevron). I hope to see the day Sullivan is overturned (unequal protection under the law against defamation, narrowing the candidate pipeline). I hope to see Congress take the reins on campaign finance reform and Section 230 reform.
The one SC law I’d like to see passed is locking in 9 seats, and setting a 60-day deadline for an up-down Senate vote on Confirmations. This would put court packing and Mitch McConnel’s 2015 process blocking in the rearview mirror.
pbinca-just a thought, there have been Biden appointments that have not come to a vote in the democratic controlled senate and subsequently were withdrawn
pbinca got it somewhat right until he tried this Obama-Soviet Democrat complaint:
This would put court packing and Mitch McConnel’s 2015 process blocking in the rearview mirror.
pbinca from California would have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was president to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different party. Furthermore, what that police state fascist Bribery Biden proposes if enacted would not change the precedent of lame duck presidential nominees not getting a hearing from an opposing Senate.
The Soviet Democrat ignorance of history alternates between amusing and disgusting. Judicial nominees made by a lame duck president in the last year of his presidency almost without exception are ALWAYS rejected by the opposing Senate. That would include every single circuit court nominee made by Bush in his last year that never got a view in the Senate until Obama came to power. But Soviet Democrats ignore this history and howl “Mitch McConnell!”
Take a seat California, and we’ll review some SCOTUS history going all the way back to George Washington. No joke Jack, this is one of those teachable moments.
No President of either party has ever failed to make a nomination when an opening happened in an election year. Including Obama. Even when the nomination happened AFTER the election was decided, but before the incoming president was inaugurated.
Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, Presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party CONTROLLED the Senate.
Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice in 1968. (Exposure of Fortas ethics violations led to him resigning from the Supreme Court shortly afterwards).
The other nine times, presidents made the nominations AFTER the election in a lame-duck session. In no case did the Senate reject a nominee or refuse to act on a nomination. They. Were. Confirmed.
BUT… on the other hand, ten times between 1796 and 1968 Presidents have attempted to fill e Supreme Court vacancy in an election your when the OPPOSING PARTY controlled the Senate.
Only two of the ten nominees were confirmed by that opposing Senate. Obama decided to try his luck with a nomination – his right, as well as following precedent. But, like almost all previous precedent, his nominee was also rejected by the opposing Senate.
There is absolutely nothing out of precedent about evil police state fascist Merrick Garland getting kicked to the curb. No matter how much Soviet Democrats claim it is.
It’s all precedent and historical norms. Including before Obama, when Bush’s final nominees were blocked by then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy.
They got exactly the same treatment Obama’s Merrick Garland got later. Among those who never got a hearing were appellate court nominees Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Glen E. Conrad. The The last three seats would later be filled by Obama’s nominees: James A. Wynn Jr., Albert Diaz, and Barbara Milano Keenan.
Look at that! Three judicial seats stolen by Obama! Maybe pbinca should be required to attend civics classes if he’s unaware of all of this.
Unfortunately for Obama (and his nominee), his Vice President Joe Biden had just enacted The Biden Rule during the Bush presidency.
Biden, while Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told then President Bush that he shouldn’t make a nomination while the opposing party controlled the Senate. And told the Democrat controlled Senate that if Bush did make a nomination, they should refuse to consider it. Biden wanted to change the historical process for presidents nominating justices to block a Bush nominee, and he succeeded in doing that.
So as Obama violated his VP’s new Biden Rule, the Republicans used the same Biden Rule (originally intended by Democrats to stop Bush from making a nomination, not Obama) to kick Obama’s nominee to the curb.
The Soviet Democrats were screwed by their very own manipulation of Senate rules and historical precedent – and ever since that they whimper and whine like the pissy little bit**es they are about what they did to themselves.
pbinca got it somewhat right until he tried the boring Obama-Soviet Democrat complaint: This would put court packing and Mitch McConnel’s 2015 process blocking in the rearview mirror.
pbinca from California would have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was president to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different party. Furthermore, what that police state fascist Bribery Biden proposes if enacted would not change the precedent of lame duck presidential nominees not getting a hearing from an opposing Senate in an election year.
The Soviet Democrat ignorance of history alternates between amusing and disgusting. Judicial nominees made by a lame duck president in the last year of his presidency almost without exception are ALWAYS rejected by the opposing Senate. That would include every single circuit court nominee made by Bush in his last year blocked in the Senate until Obama came to power.
But Soviet Democrats ignore this history and howl “Mitch McConnell!” Take a seat California, and we’ll review some SCOTUS history going all the way back to George Washington. No joke Jack, this is one of those teachable moments.
No President of either party has ever failed to make a nomination when an opening happened in an election year. Including Obama. Even when the nomination happened AFTER the election was decided, but before the incoming president was inaugurated.
Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, Presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party CONTROLLED the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice in 1968. (Exposure of Fortas ethics violations led to him resigning from the Supreme Court shortly afterwards).
The other nine times, presidents made the nominations AFTER the election in a lame-duck session. In no case did the Senate reject a nominee or refuse to act on a nomination. They. Were. Confirmed.
BUT… on the other hand, ten times between 1796 and 1968 Presidents have attempted to fill e Supreme Court vacancy in an election your when the OPPOSING PARTY controlled the Senate. Only two of the ten nominees were confirmed by that opposing Senate.
Obama decided to try his luck with a nomination – his right, as well as following precedent. But, like almost all previous precedent, his nominee was also rejected by the opposing Senate. There is absolutely nothing out of precedent about evil police state fascist Merrick Garland getting kicked to the curb. No matter how much Soviet Democrats claim it is. It’s all precedent and historical norms. Including before Obama, when Bush’s final nominees were blocked by then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy. They got exactly the same treatment Obama’s Merrick Garland got later.
Among those who never got a hearing were appellate court nominees Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Glen E. Conrad. The The last three seats would later be filled by Obama’s nominees: James A. Wynn Jr., Albert Diaz, and Barbara Milano Keenan. Look at that! Three judicial seats stolen by Obama! Maybe pbinca should be required to attend civics classes if he’s unaware of all of this.
Unfortunately for Obama (and his nominee), his later Vice President and then Senator Joe Biden had just enacted The Biden Golden Judicial Rule during the Bush presidency. Biden, while Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told then President Bush that he shouldn’t make a nomination while their opposing party controlled the Senate. And told the Democrat controlled Senate that if Bush did make a nomination, they should refuse to consider it. Biden wanted to change the historical process for presidents nominating justices to block a Bush nominee, and he succeeded in doing that.
So as Obama violated his VP’s new Biden Golden Judicial Rule, the Republicans used the same Biden Rule (originally intended by Democrats to stop Bush from making a nomination, not Obama) to kick Obama’s nominee to the curb. The Soviet Democrats were screwed by their very own manipulation of Senate rules and historical precedent – and ever since that they whimper and whine like the crybabies they are about what they did to themselves.
Why no discussion of the fact that FJB’s proposal would require a constitutional amendment?
See 7:23 AM comment below. Or did you mean to ask why Turley did not mention it? That is a pretty good question.
Because we all know it’s nothing more than Democrat political porn for the mental masturbation of their hoard of mentally challenged constituents.
If that were the case, it would call into question why Turley thought it fit fodder for a column. Can’t have it both ways.
Biden and the Left Wing DEM’s & Bernie Sanders crowd are mad their Marxist/authoritarian rules, Executive orders are being thrown out by the Courts, especially Supreme Court. They want a Rubber Stamp/ Tuff. Biden changes are going nowhere. The Constitution and Supreme Court will continue to survive
Joe Biden is one of the most loathsome men to ever grace the political national stage. He was always a joke, always a lying corruptocrat, always a plagiarist, always stupid and now he has dementia on top of it all. The destruction that has happened under this fools watch may never be ameliorated.
The economy can come back, the military can be rebuilt, the woke cancel culture can be eliminated but the 0ver TEN MILLION illegals will be here forever.
You seem confused. President Biden’s term has seen the economy improve, inflation tend down, pay has risen for workers and unemployment has remained low. Republicans barely mention the economy as an issue because the reality is the economy is not in bad shape. The stock market has been making record gains during his term. Companies are having record profits and shareholders are investing. Is the economy perfect? Heck no. But it is certainly better.
Ironically, our economy NEEDS immigrant workers, lots of them. Because we don’t have enough workers to fulfill the millions of jobs still being out there. More people working means a growing economy. GDP grew at 2.8% by the last report.
What have republicans been doing? Whining, complaining, and kicking the can down the road so many times because they are busy trying to figure out a way to insult the new Democratic presidential contender.
Trump and Vance are stuck on offering weird and stupid things and making comments that are not only turning away voters, but they are literally not making any sense. Once Biden dropped out Trump’s campaign has been struggling to come up with an effective strategy and so far it has been an incoherent mess. If they can’t pivot and re-asses their strategy effectively it will only show just how incompetent they really are.
George: In the immortal words of I. P. Daley, the stock market is NOT the economy, stupid. The economy is not when well-heeled investors are pleased to see their stocks go up but when middle and low income people shop at the Safeway and see prices for food staples double and triple in less than two years and when filling the family buggy costs two to three times what it cost just four years ago. That’s the economy and that is what counts. And by the way, yes, some of the comments by Trump and Vance hurt the feelings of Democrats and that’s too bad but they are true and meaningfull to many Republicans and Independents who understand the difference and can handle the truth.
JJC-the stock market is really a study in psychology. Thats why I think the 19th century description of a bad recession was a “Panic”. I agree wholly with your statement. The common everyday American lives check to check with prices up 20+ percent and wage increases slowly climbing if at all. Great to have a stock portfolio (usually) and nice performing CD’s but many do not and struggle under this worker’s paradise
We have a portfolio and it is doing quite nicely, thank you. That won’t for one second stop me from speaking and voting against the regime, even if that could potentially reduce our short-term returns (a major loss by Democrats would almost certainly help, not hurt, over the medium to long term).
GEB,
I agree.
That is how I was able to avoid the COVID down swing by pulling all our money out of the market in FEB of that year. I jumped back in, in SEP. I avoided a -16% loss, and ended the year up 23%.
Last year I did 9%. I think that is the worst I have done since 911. I average 14%. Had nothing to do with Biden, but my picks.
Now, Main St. economy, they are not doing well at all, Over two-thirds of Americans are stressed by everyday expenses – these are the most frustrating ones
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/credit-cards/americans-most-frustrating-expenses/
McDonalds is seeing a slump in sales from the same time last year as more and more American’s cannot afford even fast food. They brought back their value menu to bring back customers.
Percentage Of Americans That Worry They Won’t Be Able To Pay Their Bills Is Higher Than It Was During The Great Recession
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/the-percentage-of-americans-that-worry-they-wont-be-able-to-pay-their-bills-is-higher-than-it-was-during-the-great-recession/
JJC,
Well said.
And, inflation is cumulative.
Funny that you say that because Trump gauged his performance on the economy solely on the stock market. He bragged about it constantly and republicans parroted his claims. If Trump can use use the stock market as a measure of success, so can Biden.
Trump and Vance are not “hurting democrats feelings”, they are turning off voters crucial to their election. Alienating women and black voters is not a recipe for success. Vance is a moron who can’t accept the idea that those without children have nothing to contribute to society. Trump is making nonsensical claims about Christians being poor voters who only vote once or don’t vote often. Trump is not currently on command of the narrative. Harris is. That’s why Trump and republicans are having a difficult time figuring out how best to insult Harris without alienating women or minorities. So far that have succeeded in alienating them. With the shrinking lead he has on the polls that is not a good sign for Trump.
George: While swatting at mosquitoes you are oblivious to the rushing train approaching your behind. Now that Harris has commissioned “Whites for Harris,” it’s just a matter of time before someone like Leo Terrel comes up with “Blacks for Trump.” Guess which group will be the larger?
Jjc, what are you babbling about? Trump is currently fumbling around trying find ways to insult Harris while losing points in the polls. He’s losing voters. That’s not a good thing.
“weird”
Anyone else notice the Leftist smear word of the week?
Repeated like lemmings under a spell.
Central Committee Pronouncement: the word of the day is “WEIRD”
This is a winning word. Repeat often.
Email sent.
Sam,
I noticed it too.
Funny thing is, better to be “weird” than that freak show of woke leftism.
As opposed to….Marxist, socialist, communist, leftist, liberal, woke, etc. The labels change as often as a windsock changes direction. At least weird is still a true description. VP pick Vance seems to have a strange affection to couches. Weird.
Well, if any group knew the definition of weird it would be the Democrats.
Cut off your junk and dress up like the opposite sex- Weird
Send billions of dollars to an a corrupt country in an unwinnable war- Weird
Support a cognitively impaired senior citizen with the nuclear codes – Weird
Flood our Nation with invading hoards of unvetted people during volatile times- Weird
Fund the release of violent criminals into Society whereupon they kill or rape again-Weird
Support a candidate as a winner that couldn’t get 1% of her own Party vote in 2020-Weird
Think that Conservative America is going to roll over in support of tyrannical government without a fight to the death – Weird
In a “weird” way this is actually a complement and goes to strengthen JD’s argument to control the pace of immigration. Joseph Henrich wrote an insightful book called WEIRD where the acronym is Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. He posits that the US and other Western countries have an unusual set of social norms that frankly enabled Western civilization. So call me weird indeed.
Svelaz George can be counted on to apologize and lie about the economy.
According to him, inflation had been “trending down” for over a year. Every time he says it, I remind him that one or two months drop is not a trend. It has been between 3 and 3.5 for over a year. If he had any shame at all, he wouldnt mention the inflation rate until it is below 2.5. But even that doesnt make up for the last 3 years. Never will.
Unemployment is rising, he doesnt mention that. Especially among the black population. Why iis that??
REAL wages have gone down, he doent mention that.
The average household has much less money left at the end of the month, they dont give a rats ass about the stock market. Just like libtards didnt when it was trumps record gains. His didnt come with record inflation though.
The dream of home ownership is dead for millions. When will it return? No time soon. If Kamala wins with her laundry list of entitlements and handouts, it never will.
Yes svelaz i know you follow trumps campaign so closely. They need do nothing. The latest pols show trump still comfortably ahead in most swing states.
This race is over. Sorry little drummer boy.
George sys “inflation has trended down” forgetting that it was Biden’s inflation that needed to trend down since he caused inflation to hit over 9%. George wants credit for putting out the fire he started.
George must be a paid operative, it would be hard to be that stupid and/or biased without a financial gain.
Hullbobby, it’s better than it was. Do you not want it to be better? Because it DID go down during Biden’s term.
Republicans are not talking about the economy. Why is that?
You seem confused. President Biden’s term has seen the economy improve, inflation tend down, pay has risen for workers and unemployment has remained low.
From the Biden/Harris campaign’s lying lips straight to Cheap Fake American George’s party apparatchik fingers on his keyboard. Biden/Harris – greatest presidency in living history!
Republicans barely mention the economy as an issue because the reality is the economy is not in bad shape.
Oh yeah, Trump never mentions how Americans can’t afford to shop. Bidenomics is NEVER mentioned by Republicans in Congress.
And there’s Harris running around bragging “I was the last one in the room with The Big Guy we came up with Bidenomics, the last one in the room when we decided to desert Afghanistan and thousands of Americans there – and allow millions of unvaccinated Illegal Aliens we invited here to illegally cross here during Wuhan Flu”
George hopes he can convince normal Americans not to believe their lying eyes.
A President could conceivably pack the Court without first getting a Constitutional Amendment passed, but so far as imposing term limits on Justices goes, read the document:
“Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOUR and shall, at stated Times,
receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.” (CAPS are mine)
That clearly guarantees that all Federal judges enjoy tenure, unless grounds exist to remove a judge FOR CAUSE. In other words, term limits for those judges clearly cannot be imposed without first passing an Amendment modifying that Section. NTM the ultimate practical obstacle making this chance. I don’t mean getting Congress to pass the enabling legislation, either, as difficult as that might be, that is actually the easy part. Who would be the final arbiters of the Constitutionality of the measure once passed, given the inevitable challenges? The Supreme Court justices. Does anyone think that the majority of SCOTUS justices would uphold such a measure? I’m not even sure that the liberal justices would go for this. I suppose someone will make an argument for recusal based on self-interest, but by that logic, ALL Federal judges should recuse on the matter, which would leave a completely untenable mess.
I agree that term limits requires an Amendment. But, Congress could pass law setting the number of seats to nine, since the Constitution is silent on this number.
Huh? Pbinca, that makes no sense. Congress obviously has already passed a law setting the number to nine — that’s why there are nine justices! How else do you imagine that could have happened? But what Congress can’t do is fix the number at nine. There is literally nothing Congress can do that would prevent some future Congress from changing the number to thirty-six, or to three. To do that requires a constitutional amendment, just as for term limits.
Third attempt, maybe this time it will post.
Huh? Pbinca, that makes no sense. Congress obviously has already passed a law setting the number to nine — that’s why there are nine justices! How else do you imagine that could have happened? But what Congress can’t do is fix the number at nine. There is literally nothing Congress can do that would prevent some future Congress from changing the number to thirty-six, or to three. To do that requires a constitutional amendment, just as for term limits.
“ In a failed attempt to save his nomination, Biden offered to “reform” the Court by imposing an 18-year term limit that would jettison the three most senior conservative justices.”
Ummm…what? His nomination? Biden made this call for reform AFTER he quit running for president. Why would that be “an attempt to save his nomination”?
The current Supreme Court has shown a knack for ignoring precedent. If there are term limits imposed and robust ethics rules with teeth perhaps justices would be more inclined to render opinions on the law instead of ideology. Thomas and Alito are clearly ideologues who will discard their cherished originalist and textualist interpretation of the law when it becomes an inconvenience. They’ve already show us they are willing to do that when the outcome is not ideologically favorable.
Biden tried to tell the leftists that this would come if they kept him in office, your time line in off.
Calling only conservatives ideologues while ignoring the idiotic reasoning of Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, RBG et al is lame and partisan.
He made the announcement AFTER he dropped his candidacy for president. Why would he be “saving his nomination”?
Conservative justices are indeed ideologues. They proclaim to adhere to originalist and textualist interpretation of the constitution, but the last couple of rulings have not adhered to it. When their ideological principles don’t align with the outcome they would prefer they come up with an excuse not to use those so-called principles. Justice Barrett has chastised the he fellow conservatives for making such excuses. Even she acknowledges when they abandon the so called originalist and textualist principles they supposedly hold dear.
The big guy is in effect, a lame duck. He is not running for reelection. He doesn’t have to worry about what he says. In 6 months he’s history. Over the past 50 years, this man has proven to be a congenital liar and a man with no principles.
That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.
—–Joe Biden, May 2024
From Harris’ lying lips to Cheap Fake American George’s apparatchik fingers: Thomas and Alito are clearly ideologues who will discard their cherished originalist and textualist interpretation of the law when it becomes an inconvenience.
George just made a 180 degree turn on the Constitution. Suddenly, originalist and textualist interpretation of the Constitution by justices is a stain on America. Meanwhile, George makes weekly claims that an originalist and textualist interpretation of the Constitution supports his racist claims that all black slaves should have been deported after the Civil War and black Americans like Obama and Harris don’t meet constitutional requirements to run for president.
Harris and her fellow Soviet Democrats want a court packed with activist judges who will give them from the SCOTUS benches what they can’t get by running for election on those issues – they can’t get what they want in an elected Congress, so they want activist party bosses on SCOTUS to deliver it for them. Dreamers. Homosexual marriage. Obama legislating Obamacare with his phone and pen.
Cheap Fake American George demands more demagogues to legislate from the SCOTUS bench like Justice Wise Racist Latina Woman Sotomayor and Justice Birthing Person (Questioning) Ketanji Brown Jackson.
@Svelaz-George
That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.
—–Joe Biden, May 2024
So? People can’t change their minds? This was in May when Biden was still running for office. Now that he isn’t he changed his mind. Trump changes his mind mid-sentence or forgets he said something the very next day.
Joe Biden has never owned a principle.
I disagree, he owned quite a few principals in his LLC bribery scheme.
The court has been making rulings based no sketchy interpretations. Then there’s the ethics issue and bribery, er gifts, from wealthy donors. It’s not a bad idea to issue term limits to Supreme Court justices or have real ethics rules with real consequences for violating them. The problem is the federalist society doesn’t want that because it would upend their long running plan to mold the court into their preferred configuration.
If democrats do win the office of the president and get significant majorities in both houses then there’s not much republicans can do. Constitutionally Congress CAN change the rules for the Supreme Court if they choose to.
Adding more justices is another way to balance the court’s heavy lean towards the right. Term limits ensures one ideology does not dominate the court forever. Professor Turley has admitted supporting an incremental increase in the number of justices. If the court becomes too political or ideological Congress CAN make changes to correct the imbalance.
Besides a john roberts opinion (like TX Dept of Housing), name a justice’s opinion was tainted by an ethics or bribery issue
Thomas refusal to recuse from Trump’s immunity case. Thomas clearly had a conflict of interest since his wife was directly involved in the attempt to change the outcome of the election in 2020. One company who was involved in offering “gifts” to the justice did end up in front of the Supreme Court. Thomas did not recuse.
He’s not required to, but the appearance of impropriety was there. His “omissions” of previous trips he “forgot” to report taint any semblance of impartiality. Thomas has been taking lavish “gifts” and enjoys ample “hospitality” from his very wealthy billionaire ‘friends’.
Turley would be all over this corrupt influence peddling. Strangely he is dead quiet about it.
Thomas clearly had a conflict of interest since his wife was directly involved in the attempt to change the outcome of the election in 2020.
https://checkyourfact.com/2022/01/17/fact-check-virginia-thomas-jan-6/
Fact checkers say Cheap Fake American George has been caught lying again – a daily occurrence.
Democrat misogyny and hatred of women on display! How DARE a white woman marry a black American! How DARE that traitorous white women decide she has a right to free speech to express her opinions about current political events! If she’s too old to stay pregnant and in the kitchen, she should at least stay in the house and keep her traitorous mouth shut.
Clearly, Cheap Fake American George is following the Joseph Goebbels Rule Of Truth – if we parrot ProPublica claiming Thomas’ wife was a Leader Of The Insurrection… eventually it will become truth.
Svelaz-George
That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.
—–Joe Biden, May 2024
Then there’s the ethics issue and bribery, er gifts, from wealthy donors.
Errrrrr… Cheap Fake American George doesn’t have a problem with Cheap Fake American Vice President raking in tens of millions of dollars in bribes from agents of adversarial nations – while continuing to lie he never knew who any of his customers were, much less ever actually meeting or speaking with them. He’s all good with that… George’s ethics say that’s fine and he shouldn’t mention any of that!
How do we know that Thomas and Alito have been bribed and have ethics issues?
Well silly, that’s obvious: Bribery Biden And his fellow Cheap Fake American George keep telling us they have. The Joseph Goebbels Rule Of Truth: if you repeat the lie about dirty Jews/conservative Justices enough, it will eventually be accepted as the truth.
Remember back when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was happily going out in public during Trump’s 2016 run for president, claiming he was dangerous and should never be allowed to be president? Cheap Fake American George and Cheap Fake American Vice President Biden never had an ethics problem with that as they do now eight years later because one judge’s wife gave their rectum neighbors a flag finger. How odd!
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html
George, you’re a Cheap Fake American who doesn’t have a shred of ethics, just like Biden and Harris that you pimp and lie for.
If they are willing to go that far, it is time to end it all. A national divorce. We all know what they want, we know what they are willing to do to get it (cheat), so it is only a matter of time.
We need to excise the cancer and provide it its own host. Otherwise, the entire nation will devolve into a late 60s urban city model, like Detroit.
By “legacy” I assume you refer to Biden’s intentional destruction of America to appease all those bribe-givers? Oh excuse me I meant to say “influence peddling.”
Good thing SCOTUS has made bribery much harder to prosecute.
Good thing SCOTUS has made bribery much harder to prosecute.
The number of people who have never actually read that decision and just parrot what they see Bribery Biden and the Mainstream Media claim is kind of amusing.
I await an explanation of how a Vice President taking millions of dollars in bribes from adversarial nations is an official act covered by presidential immunity.
Similarly, how a president has immunity from prosecution regarding FOUR DECADES of stealing and distributing classified information while a Senator and then Vice President to his crackhead kid son.
Where do you find that immunity in the decision?
BTW, you don’t have to remain a feckless Anonymous coward, posting while hidden behind ‘Anonymous’ instead of posting with a username. Unless you prefer to do it that way.
Signed,
Old Airborne Dog
Hello Proofreader! The title should read “Biden” not “Biden’s!!” C’mon, man!
Professor Turley has a very good article here. However he should swap the name Biden to Obama.
Obama’s 3rd term has been destructive
Our Constitution. Balance of power. From Texas: If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The Supreme Court is the final protection against the tyranny of temporary majorities. The Left simply does not believe in our system of government–except when it is in control. What amazes me is how far we have come: When President Roosevelt tried to pack the Court, Democrats killed the scheme; now it’s anything to give them power. Anyone who loves liberty should be appalled.
In the next 100 Days
The Democrat’s strategy has taken shape. It is to ‘rush’ People into their voting decision.
Biden stayed in the race until the last possible moment (He could before Hunter’s September trials begin, and he could cut a deal for his family ‘s prosecution).
August – Harris is now in position to rally at her 2nd Wedding Reception (She is in it for the Wedding, not the Marriage) the DNC Convention. So they hang Peoples attention on the choice of her V.P. (Who’s the Bride?) for a splash of media blitz.
September – then we’re down to crunch time. a V.P. Debate, maybe a Presidential Debate, and draw away attention from Hunter Biden and Joe & Jill Trial (It’s just a boring Tax thingy, blah blah blah… right)
October, Rush, Rush, Rush, negative Ad blitz, crossfire misinformation confusion.
November – The Poll swamp early turn-out spinning then ‘Bang!’ the 5th of November.
Ballot Box scramble, finger pointing, more finger pointing, America is put out to dry for another Uni-Party 4 Years of spending the People’s Money for nothing. Politicians, they never change, why when it easy money.
Mean time the Powers-to-Be will be framing up World War III with a One-Two punch of Ukraine and Israel aggression. The Money will flow and the Tanks will roll, and Wall Street will annex the Crypto Kingdom. All will be well in La La Land.
Oh Yeah – God Bless America
“Remember, remember!
The fifth of November”
Why Not – The change could be good, healthy for the U.S.. I would also suggest that changing the Executive branch with a Swiss style Executive Council would also be a good change (mush to the chagrin of the detractors on this blog).
It’s obvious that the present [K} System is flawed, but even the Framers had the wherewithal to realize that change will be necessary and built in mechanisms to make that possible.
The resistance is a Eminence Front that precludes these changes from occurring and defies our Founder’s intentions.
Swiss council you say? Bet you’ve never been to Switzerland, or fluent in Swiss german. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
I married a Swiss National – in Mellingen, Canton of Aargau, Love It!
The Aargau? Or Mellingen?
The Aargau? is the “County” – yes civil ceremony was at the Hall with civil Register. Interesting process, it’s like validating a Family tree linage, for the records. Mellingen? is the Village – Reception was wonderful, Family & Friends great – it’s a nice place.
Have him take you back to his native land ASAP.
The Swiss experience had a positive influence on the American Revolution, figured in the debates on adoption of the United States Constitution, and was a matter of commentary in the political struggles of the early Republic.
The American model influenced the Swiss Constitution of 1848, but before that the Swiss Confederation-then 500 years old helped inspire the birth of the American Republic, particularly regarding the interrelated concepts of resistance to oppression, independence from foreign states, neutrality, a people’s militia, and federalism.
Americans examined the Swiss experience in three periods.
First, before and during the Revolution , when they faced the world’s mightiest military power-Great Britain-the colonists were inspired by how a small country had repeatedly defeated the great monarchies of Europe and preserved its independence .
Second, when the federal Constitution was proposed and considered for ratification, the Swiss Confederation was depicted as too weak by the Federalists who supported the Constitution, but was heralded by the Anti-Federalist opponents as worthy of emulation.
Third, when France overran Switzerland in 1798-99, the lessons for neutrality, the militia, and federalism were subjected to conflicting interpretations by the Federalist and Republican parties that had now emerged. …
PDF: scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=sahs_review
https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2021/01/switzerland-and-the-usa-sister-republics/
… [Swiss] Federalism and the bicameral system
The two houses of parliament in Bern are in fact copied from the House of Representatives and Senate in Washington. Beyond the bicameral system, which allow even cantons with a small population to be heard, Switzerland stands for a combination of centralised state and cantons. The cantons can decide for themselves in many matters. The US constitution was a model for the Alpine country’s fundamental rights and human rights and for the separation of powers.
But in many respects, there were differences between the two even back in 1848. In Switzerland, parliament elects judges to the Federal Court. Unlike the US Supreme Court, the Swiss court is not a constitutional court. At the executive level, the Swiss federal cabinet of seven ministers is a completely different concept from the American presidential system. …
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/sister-republics-what-the-us-and-switzerland-have-in-common/73368873
Eminence Front (by The Who)
The sun shines
And people forget
The spray flies as the speedboat glides
And people forget
Forget they’re hiding
The girls smile
And people forget
The snow packs as the skier tracks
People forget
Forget they’re hiding
Behind an eminence front
Eminence front, it’s a put on
It’s an eminence front
It’s an eminence front, it’s a put on
An eminence front
Eminence front, it’s a put on
Eminence front
It’s an eminence front
It’s an eminence front, it’s a put on
It’s a put on, it’s a put on, it’s a put on
Come and join the party
Dress to kill
Won’t you come and join the party
Dress to kill, dress to kill
Drinks flow
People forget
That big wheel spins, the hair thins
People forget
Forget they’re hiding
The news slows
People forget
Their shares crash, hopes are dashed
People forget
Forget they’re hiding
Behind an eminence front
An eminence front, it’s a put on
It’s just an eminence front
An eminence front, it’s a put on
An eminence front
An eminence front, it’s a put on
Eminence front
It’s an eminence front, it’s a put on
It’s a put on, it’s a put on, it’s a put on
Come on join the party
Dress to
Come on join the party
Dress to
Come on join the party
Dress to
Come on join the party (Dem/Rep)
Dress to kill
Dress yourself, dressed to kill
I must admit to being somewhat surprised to learn that Biden has a principle