Biden unveils radical plan to overhaul Supreme Court — but one major question throws a wrench in his narrative

[Lukaris]

Driving to work this morning, I actually heard on ABC radio news that Justice Alito flying a flag is one of the major reasons for these “reforms”.

I know that he flew a flag of a pine tree with an “appeal to heaven” slogan on it. Probably some of the non American, leftist, totalitarians will lecture about “extremism”. Funny, close relatives of mine who are core Democrats have flown this flag also because it is from our Revolution in 1776. I guess they are extremist also.

 

[Bradskii]

"President Biden putting the Supreme Court into play does have the potential to energize conservatives in the presidential election," he said. "We know from experience that the court issue has always motivated conservatives and Republicans more than it motivated Democrats and liberals.

Those who are going to vote one way or the other have already decided. This isn't a campaign move, but it will give those who think that the SC does need looking at some food for thought.

 

[Bradskii]

Driving to work this morning, I actually heard on ABC radio news that Justice Alito flying a flag is one of the major reasons for these “reforms”.

I know that he flew a flag of a pine tree with an “appeal to heaven” slogan on it. Probably some of the non American, leftist, totalitarians will lecture about “extremism”. Funny, close relatives of mine who are core Democrats have flown this flag also because it is from our Revolution in 1776. I guess they are extremist also.

Well, if they had also flown the US flag upside down as Alito also did then I'd be suspicious. But Alito said his wife flew it because of an argument with a neighbour, not because of any connection to revolutionary patriotism. Now why that would need to be done because of a dispute wasn't at all clear. But what was clear was that he flew the same flag at a beach house he also owns he owns.

'The flag was confirmed to have flown over Alito’s beach house in July and September 2023'. Alito Ethics Defense Blown Up by Second Insurrectionist Flag

Hey, maybe the neighbour at the one property also bought an adjoining house at the second property. And maybe Alito wasn't aware that it's now being used By Jan 6 supporters. And maybe we can blame his wife for it. And perhaps he can't tell up from down when hoisting his nation's flag. And maybe if you try really hard then you can excuse all this. But then I have an offer on a nice bridge in which you might be interested.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Term limits is a bad idea. The entire point of lifetime service was that justices would not have to give any consideration to post-Court employment. With a 12-year term limit, they'd be just as susceptible to lobbies as Congresscritters. I'd be okay with an age limit of 75.

There are ways to deal with that - they can retain their salary in perpetuity and be barred from working for lobbyists (or any political institutions), for example. Justices already have the option to continue their service on a lower court after retirement (28 U.S. Code § 294 - Assignment of retired Justices or judges to active duty).

I don't know that term limits are the right answer here, but they do solve some problems (namely, the trend towards appointing younger and younger justices), and the pitfalls aren't as great as they are in the legislature

 

[RDKirk]

It’s pretty clear that the lack of term limits has been an issue more than once. It raises the stakes for each presidential election, incentivizes older justices to hang on past their prime to game the system, and incentivizes presidents to nominate younger and younger judges.

Term limits will certainly cause the exact problem you're trying to solve. Think of some other solution.

 

[RDKirk]

There are ways to deal with that - they can retain their salary in perpetuity and be barred from working for lobbyists (or any political institutions), for example. Justices already have the option to continue their service on a lower court after retirement (28 U.S. Code § 294 - Assignment of retired Justices or judges to active duty).

I don't know that term limits are the right answer here, but they do solve some problems (namely, the trend towards appointing younger and younger justices), and the pitfalls aren't as great as they are in the legislature

I think the solution is actually to fix Congress. We saw the crux of the problem during the Obama administration when Congress refused to allow Obama to select a justice when the time came. Younger judges are not a problem if they meet the selection criteria.

Once upon a time--within my own memory--Congresscritters stood on their own legs. Presidents might have been considered the "leader" of their party, but Congresscritters firmly believed in the independence of Congress and did not kowtow to presidents even of their own parties. That's why Nixon had to resign...the Republicans in Congress in those days were as willing to prosecute a bad Republican president as they would a bad Democrat president.

And then another problem was Ginsberg's failure to step down when she should have. A suitable mandatory retirement age would solve that problem.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Leonard Leo warns Biden-Harris efforts to radically overhaul Supreme Court could 'backfire'

Conservative activist Leonard Leo speaks with Fox News Digital about President Biden's efforts to radically overhaul the Supreme Court, saying they could backfire.

www.foxnews.com

Conservative activist Leonard Leo says President Biden's efforts to overhaul the Supreme Court may be an effective way to energize his political base, but he should also watch out for less progressive voters being reminded of what's at stake in November.
"It's a good political ploy. It certainly will help to energize a Democrat base that's reeling from a lot of disorder and uncertainty lately," Leo told Fox News Digital. "But ultimately, these are the kinds of proposals that, I think, not likely to be adopted, but if ever adopted, they would really politicize the institution."
The influential fundraiser and legal activist known for his work with the Federalist Society has helped shape the conservative judiciary over several decades. Leo said in an interview Monday that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive 2024 Democratic nominee who endorsed the radical overhaul efforts, could just as easily motivate conservatives.
"President Biden putting the Supreme Court into play does have the potential to energize conservatives in the presidential election," he said. "We know from experience that the court issue has always motivated conservatives and Republicans more than it motivated Democrats and liberals. So there's a good chance that by putting this issue in full view, it just allows the Trump campaign and Republican candidates for the Senate and House to talk about the successes we've had with the Constitution and the rule of law, the Supreme Court over the past several years, and that we should want more of the same. So it could potentially backfire."

He may be right about this energizing conservatives more than liberal, but it's kind of laughable that a guy from the Federalist Society is concerned about something politicizing the supreme court.

Term limits will certainly cause the exact problem you're trying to solve.

How do you figure?

 

[RDKirk]

Some politicians don’t reach their peak until after 75, like Chuck Grassley when he turned 75, 200 years ago!

He was and is too old.

It's not just a matter of whether a person can still get out of bed and remain erect for the day.

It's also a matter of how long ago his perspective became fixed....and virtually everyone's perspective becomes fixed at some point in their lives. The percentage of people who can mentally pivot to a new perspective at age 70 is very small. Some of us realize we can't mentally pivot (which is at least something), but most of us old folk simply don't see a need ever to pivot even when a changed situation is staring us in the face.

I'm continually flabbergasted, for instance, by the high percentage of fellow Boomers who refuse to acknowledge that the economic situation for their own children and grandchildren is different (read: worse) than it was for us at their ages, and that doing the same things we did won't work for them. And this is even true among Boomers who are still supporting their own children and grandchildren. I ask them incredulously, "Why do you think your Millennial child is still living with you?" I may be too old to change my perspective, but at least I realize there needs to be a new perspective.

Most old people don't change their perspective, a fact of life, and that's as true for Congresscritters as it is for the elderly population overall. They may still run adequately in their same old ruts...but they can't climb out of their ruts when it's time to take a different road.

 

[RDKirk]

There are ways to deal with that - they can retain their salary in perpetuity and be barred from working for lobbyists (or any political institutions), for example. Justices already have the option to continue their service on a lower court after retirement (28 U.S. Code § 294 - Assignment of retired Justices or judges to active duty).

That's a huge Constitutional problem.

 

[RDKirk]

How do you figure?

I've already explained that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's a huge Constitutional problem.

In what way?

 

[Vambram]

Biden Wants To Destroy SCOTUS To Help Power-Mongers

Recent dissents from SCOTUS' left wing contradict Biden's claim that the conservative majority is endangering our personal freedoms.

thefederalist.com

Adopting the leftist bloc’s view would turn judges into super-legislators with veto authority over local laws and ordinances they don’t like under the guise of constitutional interpretation. That is judicial activism, pure and simple. Accordingly, when Joe Biden claims that we “stand in a breach” and must defend democracy against the conservative appointees on the Supreme Court, it is to prevent them from further reigning in these kinds of unchecked government powers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Biden Wants To Destroy SCOTUS To Help Power-Mongers

Recent dissents from SCOTUS' left wing contradict Biden's claim that the conservative majority is endangering our personal freedoms.

thefederalist.com

Adopting the leftist bloc’s view would turn judges into super-legislators with veto authority over local laws and ordinances they don’t like under the guise of constitutional interpretation. That is judicial activism, pure and simple. Accordingly, when Joe Biden claims that we “stand in a breach” and must defend democracy against the conservative appointees on the Supreme Court, it is to prevent them from further reigning in these kinds of unchecked government powers.

That's what the Roberts Court has already declared itself -- an unaccountable superlegislature. It is exactly why they need to be reigned in.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know that he flew a flag of a pine tree with an “appeal to heaven” slogan on it. Probably some of the non American, leftist, totalitarians will lecture about “extremism”.

Hey look - poisoning the well.

 

[RDKirk]

In what way?

The freedom of association.

 

[RDKirk]

That's what the Roberts Court has already declared itself -- an unaccountable superlegislature. It is exactly why they need to be reigned in.

Even this heavily conservative court hasn't given right-wingers everything they've wanted.

Imagine how agitated libertarians (and others) must have been over the composition of the Court in 1947, that they were compelled to write and ratify the 22 Amendment. Notice that the fix to the Supreme Court then was actually a fix to the Executive Branch.

I believe that the best fix to the Court today is actually a fix to the Legislative Branch. The kind of Congressional partisan shenanigans that prevented Obama from seating justices in a timely fashion is what needs to be fixed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even this heavily conservative court hasn't given right-wingers everything they've wanted.

That's not the measure to be used.

Imagine how agitated libertarians (and others) must have been over the composition of the Court in 1947, that they were compelled to write and ratify the 22 Amendment. Notice that the fix to the Supreme Court then was actually a fix to the Executive Branch.

How did limiting presidents to two terms "fix the court"?

I believe that the best fix to the Court today is actually a fix to the Legislative Branch. The kind of Congressional partisan shenanigans that prevented Obama from seating justices in a timely fashion is what needs to be fixed.

The only way to fix that "shenanigan" would be to take the power to confirm from the Senate, as that is body that "misbehaved" in that case.

 

[Pommer]

Leonard Leo warns Biden-Harris efforts to radically overhaul Supreme Court could 'backfire'

Conservative activist Leonard Leo speaks with Fox News Digital about President Biden's efforts to radically overhaul the Supreme Court, saying they could backfire.

www.foxnews.com

Conservative activist Leonard Leo says President Biden's efforts to overhaul the Supreme Court may be an effective way to energize his political base, but he should also watch out for less progressive voters being reminded of what's at stake in November.
"It's a good political ploy. It certainly will help to energize a Democrat base that's reeling from a lot of disorder and uncertainty lately," Leo told Fox News Digital. "But ultimately, these are the kinds of proposals that, I think, not likely to be adopted, but if ever adopted, they would really politicize the institution."
The influential fundraiser and legal activist known for his work with the Federalist Society has helped shape the conservative judiciary over several decades. Leo said in an interview Monday that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive 2024 Democratic nominee who endorsed the radical overhaul efforts, could just as easily motivate conservatives.
"President Biden putting the Supreme Court into play does have the potential to energize conservatives in the presidential election," he said. "We know from experience that the court issue has always motivated conservatives and Republicans more than it motivated Democrats and liberals. So there's a good chance that by putting this issue in full view, it just allows the Trump campaign and Republican candidates for the Senate and House to talk about the successes we've had with the Constitution and the rule of law, the Supreme Court over the past several years, and that we should want more of the same. So it could potentially backfire."

It’s an issue that Kamala can either champion (she’s just like Biden) or disagree with, (she’s her own person).
Which way she goes depends on the knee-jerk reactions of the electorate.
It’s politics 202.

 

[Pommer]

Even this heavily conservative court hasn't given right-wingers everything they've wanted.

Imagine how agitated libertarians (and others) must have been over the composition of the Court in 1947, that they were compelled to write and ratify the 22 Amendment. Notice that the fix to the Supreme Court then was actually a fix to the Executive Branch.

I believe that the best fix to the Court today is actually a fix to the Legislative Branch. The kind of Congressional partisan shenanigans that prevented Obama from seating justices in a timely fashion is what needs to be fixed.

This would require a Congress that was dedicated to the notion that the parties work together for the betterment of the nation (as a whole) by consensus (rather than the partisanship of the last thirty years).

2037, not earlier.

 

[Pommer]

And then another problem was Ginsberg's failure to step down when she should have. A suitable mandatory retirement age would solve that problem.

Given what (didn’t) happen after Scalia’s death, RBG probably felt she couldn’t retire fearing that Mitch might just be crazy enough to allow two seats go unfilled.
(Should she have retired after 2015? Sure, but she didn’t)