Columns, Constitutional Law, Politics, Supreme Court

Biden Abandons the Court . . . and His Last Inviolate Principle

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.”

541 thoughts on “Biden Abandons the Court . . . and His Last Inviolate Principle”

  1. When the court makes up presidential immunity and effectvily writes 14A3 out of the constitution, they have jumped the shark and need to be reformed. They have gone far beyond just interpreting laws.

    1. Sammy faithfully parroted the Soviet Democrat lie: When the court makes up presidential immunity

      Does anyone believe for one second that Sammy actually read that decision? As opposed to faithfully parroting that line as she previously parroted the “Trump Russia Dossier” lie for years? Could Sammy provide a grade five level summary of the SCOTUS decision?

      Could Sammy even give a grade five level summary of what the three dissenting Soviet Democrat justices said in their dissent?

      I don’t. If Sammy were questioned face to face without Google available to help Birthing Persons, it would be a very one sided conversation.

      Sammy, you Soviet Democrats are always dodging by saying “educate yourself”. Take your own advice:

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

  2. The Oaths of Office for President and Congress include a promise to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. It’s pretty clear to me that Biden just violated his oath of office, but no one is talking about that; just the merits of the argument. How can you let him get away with that, Jonathon?

      1. Not sure but I would tend to believe that an amendment to the constitution would be put forth by a Congressional bill or committee. I wouldn’t think that a President would throw it out as raw meat to a pack of booger eating morons to consider.

  3. Biden says: “So today, I’m calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

    1. No more immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office
    2. Term limits for Supreme Court justices
    3. A binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court”

    Yes, Big Guy, let’s talk about crimes committed while in office, and start with YOURS, you treasonous scum.
    Then let’s talk about term limits for political scumbags like YOU and your 50 years of dirty politics & corruption.
    As for ethics, YOU sir, should just sit this one out.

    This is the next authoritarian coup attempt by radical Democrats trying to get as much mileage as they can out of their recently deposed, unprincipled useful idiot, demented puppet president.

  4. If Harris wins, I want to see the look on Vladimir Putin face when he first meets her. That should be priceless. You go girl.

    1. Putin would own her, lock, and muffin, within 5 minutes of that meeting.

        1. Shoulda been “lock, stock, and muffin”

          How about “lock, stock, and muff”?

          California State Assembly Speaker Willy Brown knew how to own her.

          1. Meant that. Figured “muffin” might stand a better chance of passing muster with our resident inconsistent profanity censor.

  5. This is not a Joe Biden idea. This is the marxist Kacklin Kamala plan put into action as an in kind campaign contribution. She wanted it to get a head start.

  6. “The nice thing about the Supreme Court proposal is that it’s a) psychotic, b) transparent, c) unworkable, d) unconstitutional, and e) proposed by someone who’s non compos mentis. The bad thing is that liberals who can’t stand that they don’t control the Court have gone insane.” @jpodhoretz

  8. Of course, if Trump gets elected, this issue will go away…unless the Republicans hold Democrats to their “principles.” And why isn’t anyone talking about term limits for Congress? That’s where the bulk of the corruption is.

    1. Obviously the voting is the term limit. For the court the limit is by good behavior. It’s all there. The bulk of the corruption appears to be within the citizenry. Apparently the citizens don’t care much for democracy. They’re progressive and want a change. Democracy is so yesterday.

      1. Voting should be the term limit for Congress, but we all know that money in politics keeps people in office way past their sell-by date. I, too, blame voters for their bad choices, but again, money buys ads and votes. We have the most democratic system money can buy.

    2. GioCon posted And why isn’t anyone talking about term limits for Congress?

      How about talking about returning the Senate to what it was before the first Democrat police state Marxist president, Warren Wilson, convinced Americans to change that?

  9. once again the Democrats propose a fundamental change without thinking what the consequences of that change would be. they are always in a rush to make changes especially if that change will result in more power for them

    1. There are within democracies majorities and minorities unless objective principles are are understood and majorities and minorities become malleable.

      It’s best seen in the SCOTUS itself. The opinions of each justice may be in the majority and at another opinion in the minority. A single dissent may eventually prove to be true in its duration.

  10. Biden is personally responsible fo the politicization of the Supreme Court when he blocked Bork’s nomination. Before all nominees passed with just their qualifications questioned and not their political views. Now is seemingly reversed with non qualified candidates accepted if their politics agree with the party in power.

    1. John Schwartz-agree. One of the most poisonous appointment processes of all time. Tried it again with Thomas but failed and now Thomas still sits there staring out at Biden as his presidency’s legacy is starting to falter and smoke

    3. John: Thank you for the excellent reminder of Biden’s cringe-worthy background as well as exposing this history to those who know not of these things.

  11. None of this is going to happen, since term limits and no immunity require constitutional amendments (2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of states), and an enforceable ethics code requires at least a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

    This is a campaign gimmick. Whether it actually wins votes is very much an open question. Why they feel a need to appeal even more to their base is beyond me.

    1. “. . . an enforceable ethics code requires at least . . .”

      And seems to run afoul of Separation of Powers (Article III).

    2. Daniel,
      Gimmick is right. I would add, Biden’s handlers are also trying to make him look he is doing something when as you point out, is going nowhere.
      As I have mentioned before, my sister is a registered Democrat. She is NOT on board with all the crazy woke leftists that have highjacked the Democrat party. She has written to the DNC and the Biden campaign that she would not be voting Democrat if they did not get back to sane and normal. Now that Biden has been forced out and Harris in, they need to appeal to Democrats like my sister to vote for Harris.

      1. You don’t think they have captured your sister’s vote merely by checking the “female” and “black” boxes with their erstwhile candidate? She must be way smarter than your average Democrat.

  12. Did anyone suppose they had to dump Biden not just for his cognitive issues but the Ways and Means Committee disclosure of foreign bank accounts coming September?

    1. Well, now that Biden is out of the race there’s only one person with cognitive issues to contend with, Trump. He’s the old and senile running against a younger and more coherent opponent.

      1. If Trump were completely addled, he would still be head and shoulders above the Democratic DEI candidate, Cackling and Cockling, Kamala Harris!

  13. Sorry for the length of this
    Biden has no principles and never had any principles. He also cannot read and he, like Obama have no real concept of history. Biden because he is too stupid and Obama because he is too lazy. Neither one has any understanding of the theory of a constitutional republic and the separation of powers. There was a constant refrain early in Obama’s administration about him having more power if he had been brought up in parliamentary democracy such as the UK thereby he could have fundamentally transformed the entire United States. I believe John Kerry was the speaker since he loved all things European. But Obama never understood that even there a no confidence vote could cut his term short and he was blown out of the water in the House in 2010 and in a parliamentary government would have been removed from power. He also squandered a 60 vote majority in the senate over the next 4 years. Laziness and only looking at one side. He dropped 4-5 million votes in 2012 and likely would have lost with a “competent” Republican candidate
    The lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is so that unbridled power in the Executive and Legislature operating together has a brake on it and that is the Supreme Court.
    As the country swings back and forth between left and right over the decades we almost always have a Supreme Court that is counter to the Party in Power. That is the way it was designed. I am afraid the present Democratic Party is too power hungry and self righteous to ever understand that. They cannot even conceive of the fact that there would be a backlash.
    The liberal courts of the late 20th century were so busy to change civil rights (correctly!) that they overextended themselves and in their desire to change they were sloppy with the law. That gave the present conservative court a lot of field to play in.
    I was unaware of the Chevron Decision in the past (not being an attorney) but when I read it, in light of it’s recent overturn, it was inconceivable to me that the Supreme Court had said the Federal Courts should, in essence, defer to the expertise of the bureaucracy and let the executive branch write the law (in a nutshell). Somehow I missed that power in my reading of the Constitution and as yet I have not found it. Please, someone, other than George, enlighten me as to where it says in the constitution that the Supreme Court should defer to the bureaucracy.
    This is a naked Power Play by the Democratic Party and it needs to be crushed, without remorse. I will refrain from saying “by any means necessary” because I do not desire for anyone to think I propose rebellion.
    Lastly the Dims are still angry that Mitch McConnell sat on Merrick Garland’s appointment and quoted Joe’s own rule back at them, while failing to remember when Joe actually said that, the Dims controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the presidency. When the roles were reversed they expected a special dispensation from their own”rule”. Justice Barrett was a different matter because the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Presidency. A fine point that the Dims never understood. And why was Justice Barrett appointed? Because Justice RBG refused to retire at Pres Obama’s request in 2014 and died while Republicans controlled the senate and presidency. Bad timing.
    Sometimes we can give meaning to our death and sometimes we just die because our time runs out.

  14. (OT — though relevant to KH’s nihilism)

    The Olympics opening was revolting, nihilistic — one that, for wicked measure, mocked some 2 billion Christians. (And I’m not a Christian.)

    And KH? She approved.

    1. How did the Olympic opening mock christians?
      The scene that I am guessing you mischaracterize as the “Last Supper” was not the “Last Supper”.

      You need to get out of your “christian” shell and lean some Greek history. The world does not revolve around you.

      2. Perhaps it is you who need to step out of your misinformation bubble and pay attention to current events. Several of the participants, including the central figure wearing the halo, Barbara Butch, have confirmed that indeed it was meant to be a parody of DaVinci’s Last Supper. The figure of Dionysus at the Olympic ceremony is clearly in front of and separate from the table image parody of the apostles and Jesus. Frankly, the imagery does not bother me one bit. I am not religious or easily offended by what someone chooses to parody or re-enact. What does bother me is the people who try to arrogantly deny what is plain and obvious for all to see, and has even been confirmed by the very participants who performed the imagery.

      3. “. . . was not the “Last Supper”.”

        Sure. And the “P** Christ” was not really urine. It was lemonade.

        “You need to get out of your “christian” shell . . .”

        As I noted, and has been well-documented here, I am not a Christian. However, a civilized person (as opposed to a nihilist) shows respect for that ideology’s institutions, symbols, stories. He does not mock them. (BTW, that respect for another person’s ideology also demands capitalizing the name of the ideology — as in “Christian.”)

        ” . . .lean [sic] some Greek history.”

        A subject I taught and wrote about for some 25 years. But what does Greek history have to do with an Olympics opening that gratuitously insulted Christians, and that debased the very concept of a “ceremony?”

        That nihilistic ceremony was the visual equivalent of KH’s cackle

      4. You need to get out of your “christian” shell and lean some Greek history. The world does not revolve around you.

        And the Troll Fairy Religion Of Atheism has spoken… Yeah, that was straight out of Homer. Every Atheist cultist is eager to point that out – it was just a Greek God being portrayed by a well known Alphabet Sex Pride icon.

        “The organizers behind the Paris Olympics apologized to anyone who was offended by a tableau that evoked Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper””

        Just a long shot coincidence the way the actors were arranged on the stage!

        https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2024/07/28/a17bfbcb-94c2-4769-a60b-9669180a62dd/thumbnail/620×413/d5df8b0a36d0c878b090ad37e00a61a0/ap24210637324190.jpg?v=5501038cbc281520ff9fdc308faab7dc

        Note to cult members of the Atheist Rock Fairy religion from an agnostic: keep crawling out from under your rocks, Christianity isn’t dead yet.

      5. Indeed, it was the last passover supper of Jesus Christ. Apparently Bacchus attended?

        It was poorly done. Sort of France’s death rattle is more descriptive in actuality.

      1. “Don’t feel bad for Christians—feel bad for the French.”

        Feel bad for both.

        The French mocked their own cultural heritage. Da Vinci spent the last years of his life in France, painting and inventing.

        1. Sam,
          As Suzy points out, opening ceremony is about the host county’s achievements. This one was a “slopfest.” And it was just stupid.
          The fact that Harris thought it was great and it is was what America should strive for says it all.

    4. Oh, Christians got their feelings hurt because a depiction of the last supper was….offensive? Color me shocked.

      Free speech apparently is also exercised in France.

      So Christians got mocked. Big deal.

      1. “So Christians got mocked. Big deal.”

        Illustrating, once again, that to the Left nothing is sacred.

        There’s only one thing more repulsive than a blackened soul — the soulless.

        1. Funny, you know his reaction would not be the same if it were Muslims who had been mocked.

          I bet a nice Muhammad in drag would have gone over real well.

          1. How about a scene depicting Muhammed getting his junk lopped off in an operation to convert him to female?

        2. Again, it’s christians taking things way too seriously. It was a parody. It’s not going to change anything regarding christian beliefs.

          Feelings got hurt people got offended, big deal. It’s still free speech.

          Christianity has always been mocked when they take themselves too seriously. It’s the same for Muslims or any other religion. Christians mock other religions including Islam.

          1. “Christians mock other religions including Islam”

            Makin’ shit up again

      2. Not surprising. You get mocked for your stupidity here daily, and seem to enjoy it.

      3. Christians have been mocked, are mocked and will be mocked. That is a foregone conclusion. But how does this fit into the theme of the Olympics? Excellence and universality are core tenants. Even if this was not a depiction of the Last Supper but of Dionysus, how is this appropriate for an audience that includes children?

        Regarding those who mock God, it is certainly their choice. The only sure thing in this life is death. That will be the moment of truth. We come into this world naked and helpless and we leave our carnal bodies behind in the same manner. What then? Perhaps, it might be wise for those so certain of things to consider Pascal’s Wager and approach the subject of spiritual matters with humility and respect for the faith based individuals.

        1. “ how is this appropriate for an audience that includes children?”

          I guess ignorance is indeed bliss. Children from different countries are not going to be offended or harmed by such displays. In France where topless beaches are common this wouldn’t be controversial. Only here with overly sensitive easily offended Christian would a display be controversial.

          1. An emotional Anonymous acolyte of the Rock Fairy Religion of Atheism tried this:Only here with overly sensitive easily offended Christian would a display be controversial.

            Good thing “here” doesn’t have any Muslims air mailing members of the Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe one way from rooftops.

            At the same time apparently, the beaches of Muslim majority populations like Iran, Pakistan, Gaza, Egypt, Indonesia etc have topless beaches everywhere – just like France. AND (for those who don’t frequent beaches) Drag Queens and the Alphabet Sex Tribe dressed like cheap whores doing performances for little Muslim boys in their madrassas.

            Next thing you know, those overly sensitive easily offended Christians will be forcing women to wear head to toe beekeeper suits to ensure there’s no exposed skin to offend other Christians.

            Atheists… the cult religion whose main obsession is claiming they’re right with their version of Creation and the Christians are wrong. As an agnostic, I’d rather deal with a Jehovah’s Witness than a bug eyed, radical Atheist.

            BTW, Anonymous coward, you don’t have to do the equivalent of wearing a hajib to hide yourself inside while posting here anonymously. You can post with a username – unless you’re too cowardly to do that.

            Signed,
            Old Airborne Dog

        2. E.M.
          Great comment.
          While I am not religious, I do think there should be a degree of respect for a persons religion. It is only common sense, common courtesy and decency.
          I would no more mock Christianity, than I would mock Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Mormons.
          Jehovah’s Witness, maybe those guys. 😉

      4. Cheap Fake American George tried this: So Christians got mocked. Big deal.

        Yeah… the real big deal that they don’t riot, pillage, loot and burn while attempting to murder anyone they believe mocks Muslims. There is that…

        Oh wait! I just remembered Benghazi! Remember Benghazi, Cheap Fake American George?

        Remember Bolshevik Barack and The Big Guy telling us that our fellow Americans they abandoned to die in Benghazi were killed not by terrorists, but instead they lied that Muslims protesting an offensive YouTube video got out of hand?

        EVERYBODY remembers, George.

    5. What’s actually revolting is the way people can’t leave sports alone to simply be about sports without various groups trying to exploit the publicity of ANY gathering of humans to hijack the narrative and make it about their own pet issue(s) — from Christianity to Anti-Christianity to Patriotism to BLM to (insert your own self-promotion here).

      “Sunday it’s Wool-Sweater Day at the ballpark! — Tuesday is Ladies Day! — and Wednesday is Alcoa Anodized Aluminum Day! Remember while watching the game that Rust Never Sleeps!”

  15. What’s good enough for the Court’s is good enough for the Congress. The electorate being too busy to care. Were it otherwise, there would not be so much octogeneric dead weight impeding the wheels of progress.

    1. CLOWN. Maybe there should be an IQ requirement for people posting online comments. Then you and 90% of the trolls in Turley’s moronic comment section would have more time to work on your giant balls of string.

    2. Communist alphabet cross-dressing, groomer loonies running rampant through our society and our institutions is in no way “progress”.

      I like the court to be as independent of the other branches as possible. The justices are going to need more protection.

    3. Were it otherwise, there would not be so much octogeneric dead weight impeding the wheels of progress.

      Are sure you want a whole bunch of youthful Wheels Of Progress from the Democrats’ Anti-Semitic Socialist Sisterhood? Ilhan Omar, Another Outrageous Communist, Tlaib, etc?

      How about the other side of the isle where Senator Cory Gardiner is the leading Never Trump Republican – that would be the guy that wants to work with Democrats to give illegal aliens citizenship. He’s not yet 50 but he’s already got 20 years in politics to craft his conservative/constitutional chops and advocate for the Dream Act and Path To Citizenship (Trademarked).

      I’ll take Chuck Grassley any day, thank you. And the current nominee for the presidency who’s nearly 80 when the alternative is his youthful opponent with LOTS of great ideas on how the wheels of progress can carry Marxism down The Long March.

  16. As long as they’re intending to change the Constitutional lifetime good-behavior appointments for SCOTUS justices, I’m surprised that democrats don’t want to make justices campaign for office every two years like congressmen. Then they could pull this nonsense and call it “democratic.” That would be fitting for a bunch of clowns that call themselves “democrats” while supporting very little that is ACTUALLY “democratic” as the word is commonly defined.

    Meanwhile, there’s ONE term limit I could get behind, and it’s a limit on the number of times that a lawyer can plug his “new” book in articles that actually have little or nothing to do with the subject of that book.

    I’ve gotten REALLY tired of reading articles while wondering how Turley is gonna clumsily work in the plug for his “new” book. It’s like waiting for Rodney Dangerfield to get to his ‘I don’t get no respect jokes” that one KNOWS are coming, but without the entertaining payoff.

    An adjunct to the term limit on plugging a book could be a formal definition of the word “new” while plugging a book. However “new” Turley’s book actually is, it seems like he’s been plugging it for several years, due to his overuse of the childish rhyme, “age of rage.”

    It doesn’t strike me as having the same shelf life as “Rumble in the Jungle” or “Thrilla in Manilla,” which were very-cleverly thought up by a guy who’s high school diploma was essentially a gift unearned — if his biographers are correct and if Ali thought of those rhymes himself. Ali was a great boxer and an even greater humanitarian and all-around good guy — one might even say a heroic figure — but I seriously doubt that anyone puts him on the list of most-educated poets.

    When one ventures into simple-rhyme territory, one enters into the ring with “The Greatest of ALL Time” as well as the poet credited by George Plimpton as having written the shortest poem in the English language:

      1. You lying, bootlicking hired trolls are the most disgusting critters on the web.

    2. Meanwhile, there’s ONE term limit I could get behind, and it’s a limit on the number of times that a lawyer can plug his “new” book in articles

      Would you support a limit on how many times Anonymous cowards can voluntarily come to a blog page just so they can complain the the author mentions a book he wrote too much? What is the political mindset of people who get a product for free – and then keep having temper tantrums that they don’t like the quality of the free product they voluntarily chose to read.

      The cure for you grief and emotional breakdown is to simply stop clicking the link to these articles when you know doing so will cause you to have an emotional breakdown.

      BTW, you don’t have to be a an Anonymous coward without a username, trembling in fear as you continue posting while hidden in the anonymous shadows.

      Signed,
      Old Airborne Dog

    3. I’ve gotten REALLY tired of reading articles while wondering how Turley

      Then go the fvck away, Ralph. We long ago tired of reading your worthless rants.

  17. He must have made a “hell” of a deal with the devil down at the Crossroads.

    There is no possibility of this occurring, however this is part of the wider propaganda campaign. They are aiming squarely at the aliterate populace who can’t read above a third grade level. Policy? What’s policy? Isn’t this selfie cute?

    This will be a “talking point” hot button item they have ginned up out of thin air and they will use during their bare knuckle smear campaign.

    Brace yourselves for a wild ride. We are witnessing an all out campaign to tear down this nation and the remnants that have made this nation great.

    1. E.M.
      Tearing down the nation seems to be their goal.
      They want to replace it with that mess that was the Olympics opening ceremony.

  18. OK JT, mister free speech is sanchrosant.

    A social-media account for white male supporters of Kamala Harris was briefly suspended from X, formerly Twitter, sparking anger online.

    What gives with the mega rich dude who believes in absolute free speech taking down an account that supports Harris?
    Free speech my ass, you and musk just want it your way and to hell with those that disagree.

      1. What does that even mean? “Turn around is fair play, Bud!”

        X suspends the account of a group that supports Harris. Why? I thought free speech was absolute? What a bunch of liars. Admit it, you have no interest in hearing speech you don’t like. Hypocrites the lot of you maga maggots for felon trump.

  19. What bothers me more about the attempts by the Dems to destroy the constitution and our nation are the lies they use as reasoning and why do I always get the feeling that Obama is the prime motivator?

  20. “[I]f Biden were to seek this change [to term limits] as a legislative matter without a constitutional amendment . . .”

    Given Article III, S1, how is that possible without a constitutional amendment?

    1. Sam-ask the Dims, they still think that abortion is a constitutional right .

      1. I’m not pro abortion but there is something in the constitution about being secure in your person. Don’t seize me and search me either nor my property.

        1. Anonymous 9:53AM
          That is the 4th amendment and if you read the entire amendment it says
          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
          Says nothing about medical procedures, medicine, at all.
          How you stretch that into a right to perform a medical procedure that involves the killing of a living human fetus is beyond me.
          The appropriate decision was to let the people decide and I can accept that by vote as virtually every other democracy has determined by plebiscite or legislation, not by judicial fiat. I, of course, as a physician don’t support abortion except for tight parameters. My job was to save life, not destroy it.

    2. Any code of ethics legislated by Congress for Supreme Court justices should also apply equally to members of Congress and the Presidency, including ethics “violations” for the spouses of Justices, legislators, ant the President. Such would exclude Michelle Obama from ever holding an elected or appointed office. These attempts by Congress to change the character and makeup of the Court by legislation rather than by constitutional amendment would effectively accelerate our country’s path to banana republic status.

Comments are closed.