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

[childeye 2]

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.

It looks to me like the decision by the Supreme court to even take up the case on Presidential immunity was the knee-jerk reaction. All their ruling did was impede the process and kick the can down the road, by not deciding whether it was an official or criminal act to try to overturn the election results.

The circumstance is that the people are charging a former sitting President with using his "official" power of "office", to alter the outcome of an election that he "officially" lost. It's critical to note that the defense is NOT claiming that the former president didn't try to do what he is charged with. The defense is claiming that he can do whatever crime he wants as an "official" act of the President.

Now I'm a citizen who voted him out. So, as I see it, the court was given the simple task of deciding whether the former President's claim of "ABSOLUTE" immunity for a "criminal" act done while in "office", is valid or it isn't.

But lo and behold, they didn't even address that simple yes or no question they were presented with. Instead, they proceeded to TRY and answer a different question with the premise of the original claim already halfway built in; "WHEN" does a sitting President have absolute immunity for a "criminal act" he commits as an "official" act of the "office" of President?

Question: When does a President have absolute immunity for a criminal act?
Answer: When the "criminal act" is an "official act".
Question: When is a "criminal act" an "official act"?
Answer: When a President has absolute immunity.

Propaganda is about taking positives and turning them into negatives and negatives into positives, and more commonly making them look neutral so that no one can tell the difference.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

But that legislation would attempt to change what the constitution says (or in this case does not say) just as it doesn't say # of terms for president. A constitutional amendment would actually change what the constitution says is legal and proper negating the ability of anyone contesting it in court. I don't believe anyone has made a serious challenge to the 22nd amendment for that very reason.

 

[HarleyER]

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.

Don't kid yourself. Expanding and limiting the Supreme Court's powers and terms is a backhanded attempt at taking over the Judicial branch of government. We're one step away from a puppet government.

 

[Pommer]

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.

But, no.

 

[Pommer]

But that legislation would attempt to change what the constitution says (or in this case does not say) just as it doesn't say # of terms for president. A constitutional amendment would actually change what the constitution says is legal and proper negating the ability of anyone contesting it in court. I don't believe anyone has made a serious challenge to the 22nd amendment for that very reason.

Please for to see post #24

 

[ralliann]

But, no.

Are they they are attempting to turn the supreme court into the equivalent of another congress but.....they are an unelected body of congress?
This is ironic as it is just a more powerful "branch" of the all the bureaucrat agencies that were just disempowered by the supreme court. But all rolled into one... on steroids????

a copy and paste from NPR
"In a momentous decision that will affect vast swaths of American life, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday undid decades of regulatory law, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. The vote, along ideological lines, was 6-to-3."

The 1984 decision, he said, is contrary to the Framers’ understanding or our form of government. Roberts went on to quote Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison declaring that, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the [judiciary] to say what the law is.” That, said Roberts, means that courts, not agencies, decide what the law is, and if Congress wants to do something different, it should say so explicitly."

 

[civilwarbuff]

Please for to see post #24

Nonetheless where in the constitution is congress granted the authority to determine the number of scotus justices? They did assume that authority and it has not been challenged but that is not to say that it is constitutionally supported. Some day it might get challenged. Why is it a bad idea to leave that decision in the hands of Congress or even the Executive? Here is is couple of reasons:

Take Congress’s beef with President Andrew Johnson. (He was Abraham Lincoln’s vice president and successor.) Congress wasn’t too fond of Johnson, since its members thought that he had abused his presidential power by removing the respected secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton, from office. Congress wanted to limit Johnson’s power as much as it could. It passed legislation in 1866 decreasing the number of judges from 10 to 7 so that Johnson wouldn’t be able to appoint a new justice. Congress’s decision was short-lived, however; SCOTUS shrank only to eight justices before the 1869 decision to set the number to nine. Not coincidentally, this was the same year that Andrew Johnson ceased to be president.

And another good reason:
Congress wasn’t the only branch of government to attempt to alter the power structure. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a reorganization bill to Congress that would allow the president to appoint a new justice for each one who was at least 70 years old. Congress did not oblige, of course: this was seen as a court-packing scheme that would have given Roosevelt too much power. Roosevelt’s motives were to push through his New Deal, which SCOTUS had continually worked against during the president’s first term.

Why Are There Nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

How did nine become the magic number for the U.S.’s most-powerful judicial body?

www.britannica.com

And lets not even get into the democrats desire during the Trump admin to pack the court.

Now maybe it is apparent why an amendment is the necessary way to go.

 

[FireDragon76]

An ethics code is needed more than term limits, IMO.

Practically speaking, Supreme Court justices could be removed through impeachment. The issue is political will in Congress.

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

My response was directed towards "Presedential Immunity" that would take a constitutional ammendment to change, and as stated it ain't gonna happen as it takes 2/3 majority in both house/senate to ratify

 

[Pommer]

Are they they are attempting to turn the supreme court into the equivalent of another congress but.....they are an unelected body of congress?
This is ironic as it is just a more powerful "branch" of the all the bureaucrat agencies that were just disempowered by the supreme court. But all rolled into one... on steroids????

a copy and paste from NPR
"In a momentous decision that will affect vast swaths of American life, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday undid decades of regulatory law, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. The vote, along ideological lines, was 6-to-3."

The 1984 decision, he said, is contrary to the Framers’ understanding or our form of government. Roberts went on to quote Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison declaring that, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the [judiciary] to say what the law is.” That, said Roberts, means that courts, not agencies, decide what the law is, and if Congress wants to do something different, it should say so explicitly."

The judiciary back in the 1970-1980s was increasingly flummoxed with all these cases flooding into the court system which had brilliant judges who would still need to spend some amount of time understanding the science behind the case…so they decided that the people who ran the agencies would know better what their own rules mean and only occasionally had a case bubble out.

Is it time to stop the agencies from adjudicating? SCOTUS says “yes”., but we’re going to need another bumper-crop of judges to handle the load that the agencies do at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Pommer]

My response was directed towards "Presedential Immunity" that would take a constitutional ammendment to change, and as stated it ain't gonna happen as it takes 2/3 majority in both house/senate to ratify

Yes, you’re correct, no politician is going to cede over the power they hold to a President/King.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

The branches aren't equal. The Judiciary is the weakest of the branches with the least power. They can only decide cases before them.

Congress could:

1. change the number of members on any court, including the Supreme Court, (and they have)
2. Specify rules regarding jurisdiction, standing, and many other aspects of the operation of the courts, (and they have)
3. Specify the limits of injunctions outside the jurisdiction of the court, the proper venue for certain cases, etc. (and they have)
4. Specify binding rules of conduct for good behavior (and they have, but not for the Supreme Court.

 

[Truth7t7]

4. Specify binding rules of conduct for good behavior (and they have, but not for the Supreme Court.

Nor for themselves, smiles!

 

[Pommer]

Nor for themselves, smiles!

Has the House disbanded the ethics committee?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nor for themselves, smiles!

Not only does Congress have binding ethics rules (Mr. Santos was expelled this Congress), but the members are clearly chargeable with crimes. All we need to do is look at the conviction *THIS MONTH* of (soon to be former) Sen. Menendez. What do you think would happen if the DOJ charged a Supreme court justice with taking bribes?

 

[Truth7t7]

Not only does Congress have binding ethics rules (Mr. Santos was expelled this Congress), but the members are clearly chargeable with crimes. All we need to do is look at the conviction *THIS MONTH* of (soon to be former) Sen. Menendez. What do you think would happen if the DOJ charged a Supreme court justice with taking bribes?

The whole American political system is built upon taking bribes

You think lobbyist are working in the interest of the American taxpayers and voters?

Big Smiles!

You think Hunter Biden is really an artist, selling paintings for up to $500k each?

More Big Smiles!

You think Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul is a good fortune teller on investing in the stock market, or could it be a little birdie speaking in his ear on insider trading?

More Big Smiles!

 

[Truth7t7]

Has the House disbanded the ethics committee?

The political atmosphere in DC is corrupt with bribery, and yes this political system allows it "Lobbying" pay to play

 

[Hans Blaster]

The whole American political system is built upon taking bribes

You think lobbyist are working in the interest of the American taxpayers and voters?

Big Smiles!

You think Hunter Biden is really an artist, selling paintings for up to $500k each?

More Big Smiles!

You think Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul is a good fortune teller on investing in the stock market, or could it be a little birdie speaking in his ear on insider trading?

More Big Smiles!

This is about the courts, not the political system.

 

[Truth7t7]

This is about the courts, not the political system.

It's about "Congress" as you mentioned in post #35, its about ethics and corruption, with a big mention of Sen Menedez from New Jersey and Congressman Santos from Florida

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's about "Congress" as you mentioned in post #35, its about ethics and corruption, with a big mention of Sen Menedez from New Jersey and Congressman Santos from Florida

NO. The thread is about the Supreme Court. YOU tried to deflect with false claims that Congress had no ethics rules or accountability. (post #33)