Again, People Should Not Have Knee-Jerk Responses to the Supreme Court

[Stephen3141]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-ethics-code-term-limits/

I have no problem with new legislation that would

1 limit the term of Supreme Court justices to 18 years
2 enforce a code of ethics on the Supreme Court justices.

In past decades, most Americans understood what it was to be immoral,
and so a code of ethics was not seen as necessary to write down and
legislate, for the Supreme Court. Now, that has changed. I have no
problem with this type of new legislation.

I have no problem with term limits, for Supreme Court justices.

But, Biden, and MANY Americans, are not understanding some of the
decisions of the Supreme Court (such as about presidential immunity, and
even the constitutionality of the "right" of abortion).

Regarding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court came up with guidelines
under which lower courts could decide whether a former president was covered
by "immunity" from prosecution, for "official acts" they did when in the office
of President. These guidelines were...

1 The act must be done as part of the "responsibilities" of the President,
under the Constitution.
2 Lower courts would decide what specific act would qualify as an
"official act" of the President
3 Acts of the President that were done, meeting the first 2 requirements,
had immunity from prosecution.
4 The former president was to be assumed innocent, until proven guilty.

***** NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE GUIDELINES IS RADICAL.
***** NOTE THAT THESE GUIDELINES ELIMINATE MOST OF THE RIDICULOUS
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS CLAIMING TO HAVE.

For example, Trump suggests that the President has immunity for killing his
political opponents.
Is this a consitutional responsibility of the President? NO!
So, can this be called an "official act" of the President? NO!
Would this be considered murder under the fair rule of law in America? YES!
So, the President could be prosecuted for murder, if he assassinated his
political opponents.

The assertion by many people, that the Supreme Court HAS DECIDED that the
President has complete immunity from prosecution for all acts that he declared
to be "official acts" when he was president, IS A CRUDE MISUNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.

I think, that on this point, Biden misunderstands the decision of the Supreme
Court regarding immunity and the President. And, it is evidence that Biden
should NOT run for president again.

NOTE: I would also say that ALL American citizens who hold the same
misunderstanding about the Supreme Court's decision about immunity,
ALSO are not competent to run for president.

Stop the knee-jerk reactions to the decisions of the Supreme Court!
Just because you may not like some decision of this Court, that does not
mean that the decision is wrong, or MERELY politically motivated.

 

[Truth7t7]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-ethics-code-term-limits/

I have no problem with new legislation that would

1 limit the term of Supreme Court justices to 18 years
2 enforce a code of ethics on the Supreme Court justices.

In past decades, most Americans understood what it was to be immoral,
and so a code of ethics was not seen as necessary to write down and
legislate, for the Supreme Court. Now, that has changed. I have no
problem with this type of new legislation.

I have no problem with term limits, for Supreme Court justices.

But, Biden, and MANY Americans, are not understanding some of the
decisions of the Supreme Court (such as about presidential immunity, and
even the constitutionality of the "right" of abortion).

Regarding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court came up with guidelines
under which lower courts could decide whether a former president was covered
by "immunity" from prosecution, for "official acts" they did when in the office
of President. These guidelines were...

1 The act must be done as part of the "responsibilities" of the President,
under the Constitution.
2 Lower courts would decide what specific act would qualify as an
"official act" of the President
3 Acts of the President that were done, meeting the first 2 requirements,
had immunity from prosecution.
4 The former president was to be assumed innocent, until proven guilty.

***** NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE GUIDELINES IS RADICAL.
***** NOTE THAT THESE GUIDELINES ELIMINATE MOST OF THE RIDICULOUS
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS CLAIMING TO HAVE.

For example, Trump suggests that the President has immunity for killing his
political opponents.
Is this a consitutional responsibility of the President? NO!
So, can this be called an "official act" of the President? NO!
Would this be considered murder under the fair rule of law in America? YES!
So, the President could be prosecuted for murder, if he assassinated his
political opponents.

The assertion by many people, that the Supreme Court HAS DECIDED that the
President has complete immunity from prosecution for all acts that he declared
to be "official acts" when he was president, IS A CRUDE MISUNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.

I think, that on this point, Biden misunderstands the decision of the Supreme
Court regarding immunity and the President. And, it is evidence that Biden
should NOT run for president again.

NOTE: I would also say that ALL American citizens who hold the same
misunderstanding about the Supreme Court's decision about immunity,
ALSO are not competent to run for president.

Stop the knee-jerk reactions to the decisions of the Supreme Court!
Just because you may not like some decision of this Court, that does not
mean that the decision is wrong, or MERELY politically motivated.

The liberals aren't going to change the constitution that takes 2/3 majority in the house/senate to pass, ain't gonna happen, it's liberal noise

Just think that Bidens DOJ didn't prosecute him for classified documents at his home because they stated he was a senile, feeble, Ole man?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

For example, Trump suggests that the President has immunity for killing his
political opponents.
Is this a consitutional responsibility of the President? NO!
So, can this be called an "official act" of the President? NO!
Would this be considered murder under the fair rule of law in America? YES!
So, the President could be prosecuted for murder, if he assassinated his
political opponents.

The problem is that there are ways in which a charitable court could find these to be official acts. For example, the president is Commander in Chief of the military - issuing an order to the military to kill someone is, therefore, an "official act".

Most people would agree that this is still murder, but there is a pathway for the courts to declare it an "official act," and that's a problem.

The assertion by many people, that the Supreme Court HAS DECIDED that the
President has complete immunity from prosecution for all acts that he declared
to be "official acts" when he was president, IS A CRUDE MISUNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.

It's definitely an oversimplification, but the point is that, in a legal environment where the courts have fairly broad discretion to decide what constitutes an "official act," the perceived bias of the courts comes into play. And we've seen increasingly biased rulings at all levels of the judiciary over the past decade or so. This isn't just an anti-Trump thing either - there are courts that lean left as well, and it's possible that a future Democratic president could get the same treatment that Trump has received from, say, Aileen Cannon.

I think, that on this point, Biden misunderstands the decision of the Supreme
Court regarding immunity and the President. And, it is evidence that Biden
should NOT run for president again.

You're about a week behind on this one.

 

[ralliann]

The problem is that there are ways in which a charitable court could find these to be official acts. For example, the president is Commander in Chief of the military - issuing an order to the military to kill someone is, therefore, an "official act".

Most people would agree that this is still murder, but there is a pathway for the courts to declare it an "official act," and that's a problem.

How do you know this? You don't. Try Trump for "his crimes" before these things are decided.
We have all seen the lawfare, and his rights being violated by the courts enough. Yes, bad judges and a corrupt justice system can happen, and has.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How do you know this? You don't.

Of course I don't - this is purely hypothetical. But by giving the courts the authority to determine what constitutes an official act, the USSC made that hypothetical situation much more possible.

Try Trump for "his crimes" before these things are decided.

I said nothing about Trump - in fact, I made a point of saying that this applies to both sides of the aisle. Rather, this is all about the perceived impartiality (or lack thereof) of the judiciary.

 

[ralliann]

Of course I don't - this is purely hypothetical. But by giving the courts the authority to determine what constitutes an official act, the USSC made that hypothetical situation much more possible.

I said nothing about Trump - in fact, I made a point of saying that this applies to both sides of the aisle. Rather, this is all about the perceived impartiality (or lack thereof) of the judiciary.

Yeah and Trump got shot.

 

[civilwarbuff]

1 limit the term of Supreme Court justices to 18 years
2 enforce a code of ethics on the Supreme Court justices.

2 problems I see with this:
1. Term limits would probably need to be added by constitutional amendment since no term limits are specified for federal court justices. As a precedent I would cite the 22nd Amendment. (While they are at it maybe put term limits on Congress also)
2. The ability of one branch of gov to impose a code of ethics on another branch would probably violate the separation of powers and upset the checks & balances system that keep each branch relatively free from control by another.

Another thought would be if Biden wants to impose this code on SCOTUS why not include all 3 branches and make it a constitutional amendment needing concurrence by the people of the states? After all, what's good for the goose......

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yeah and Trump got shot.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Pommer]

The liberals aren't going to change the constitution that takes 2/3 majority in the house/senate to pass, ain't gonna happen, it's liberal noise

Just think that Bidens DOJ didn't prosecute him for classified documents at his home because they stated he was a senile, feeble, Ole man?

We don’t need to amend the Constitution to amend how many justices sit on the court or to introduce term-limits on the seats thereof, only congressional action, this is one of the ”checks” the legislative branch has over the judicial branch.

 

[Pommer]

2. The ability of one branch of gov to impose a code of ethics on another branch would probably violate the separation of powers and upset the checks & balances system that keep each branch relatively free from control by another.

I agree with this. Internal ethics is dealt within the branch, (though Congress can pass resolutions that call upon the judicial branch to “do the right thing”).

 

[ralliann]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Does anyone really believe Biden could have ordered it without immunity? So it is pretty ridiculous isn't it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does anyone really believe Biden could have ordered it without immunity? So it is pretty ridiculous isn't it?

Do you have any evidence of Biden ordering that?

No? Then you are bearing false witness.

 

[ralliann]

Do you have any evidence of Biden ordering that?

I never claimed he did.

No? Then you are bearing false witness.

No, I am not, but you are implying one. I never said he did. It was an obvious hypothetical question, that would apply to both sides.....
Does anyone really think a president can order a hit and be immune? Obviously not.....

 

[Tinker Grey]

I never claimed he did.

No, I am not. I never said he did. It was an obvious hypothetical question, that would apply to both sides.....

That's exactly what your first question says.

 

[ralliann]

That's exactly what your first question says.

No it does not. Thinking he "could have" is hypothetical. Now, like everything else you want to gaslight as usual.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Does anyone really believe Biden could have ordered it without immunity?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It would help if you simply stated your point, rather than trying to ask leading questions.

 

[ralliann]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It would help if you simply stated your point, rather than trying to ask leading questions.

I did. Republican nor democrat believes a president could order someone killed for political purposes and be immune.

 

[ralliann]

We don’t need to amend the Constitution to amend how many justices sit on the court or to introduce term-limits on the seats thereof, only congressional action, this is one of the ”checks” the legislative branch has over the judicial branch.

It is not a check, it is a breach of equal power! More than that even. This would be giving the legislative branch power over the constitution itself...You cannot AMEND the constitution, without amending it, constitutionally.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I did. Republican nor democrat believes a president could order someone killed for political purposes and be immune.

Frankly, the opinions of the general populace (or what you think those opinions to be) are irrelevant here. This is entirely about whether a president could manufacture a legal pretext that a friendly court could accept in order to declare things that are not actually "official acts" to be official acts. If that happens, I can almost guarantee you that the president's die-hard supporters (no matter which party he (or she) belongs to) will find a way to justify it.

 

[eleos1954]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/29/biden-supreme-court-reform-ethics-code-term-limits/

I have no problem with new legislation that would

1 limit the term of Supreme Court justices to 18 years
2 enforce a code of ethics on the Supreme Court justices.

In past decades, most Americans understood what it was to be immoral,
and so a code of ethics was not seen as necessary to write down and
legislate, for the Supreme Court. Now, that has changed. I have no
problem with this type of new legislation.

I have no problem with term limits, for Supreme Court justices.

But, Biden, and MANY Americans, are not understanding some of the
decisions of the Supreme Court (such as about presidential immunity, and
even the constitutionality of the "right" of abortion).

Regarding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court came up with guidelines
under which lower courts could decide whether a former president was covered
by "immunity" from prosecution, for "official acts" they did when in the office
of President. These guidelines were...

1 The act must be done as part of the "responsibilities" of the President,
under the Constitution.
2 Lower courts would decide what specific act would qualify as an
"official act" of the President
3 Acts of the President that were done, meeting the first 2 requirements,
had immunity from prosecution.
4 The former president was to be assumed innocent, until proven guilty.

***** NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE GUIDELINES IS RADICAL.
***** NOTE THAT THESE GUIDELINES ELIMINATE MOST OF THE RIDICULOUS
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS CLAIMING TO HAVE.

For example, Trump suggests that the President has immunity for killing his
political opponents.
Is this a consitutional responsibility of the President? NO!
So, can this be called an "official act" of the President? NO!
Would this be considered murder under the fair rule of law in America? YES!
So, the President could be prosecuted for murder, if he assassinated his
political opponents.

The assertion by many people, that the Supreme Court HAS DECIDED that the
President has complete immunity from prosecution for all acts that he declared
to be "official acts" when he was president, IS A CRUDE MISUNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.

I think, that on this point, Biden misunderstands the decision of the Supreme
Court regarding immunity and the President. And, it is evidence that Biden
should NOT run for president again.

NOTE: I would also say that ALL American citizens who hold the same
misunderstanding about the Supreme Court's decision about immunity,
ALSO are not competent to run for president.

Stop the knee-jerk reactions to the decisions of the Supreme Court!
Just because you may not like some decision of this Court, that does not
mean that the decision is wrong, or MERELY politically motivated.

There's nothing wrong with the way it is.