Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court change

[neverfstop]

Good, I guess?? What's he going or willing to do to get these changes actually enacted?

GIFT wapo.st/4bGC9gI

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.



He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
-----------
Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.

[Susie]

These are good and necessary changes. But we also need to pack. the. court.

[litebright]

This feels like too little, too late.

[lilac05]

I’m glad to see this, and hope it gets some traction. I think it was wisely put together to not shut down the conversation before it started. Packing the courts sounds great…but there’s not a chance in hell that would get the support needed in Congress, and if he could do it unilaterally, the only people who would be excited about it are those who are 100% already voting for him. Others would call it an abuse of power. (Not arguing that it is, but certainly many people would.)

[noodleoo]

Jul 17, 2024 7:46:16 GMT -5 litebright said:

This feels like too little, too late.

But better late than never?  What's the alternative, giving up?

I'm happy to see this.  Something needs to be done!  Approval of the SC is historically low, maybe it will help encourage people who are fed up with the corruption to vote for Biden.  We need every vote we can get!

[livinitup]

Sure. It is a good reminder that Biden is more than a person, he’s an administration and he has smart people who can make a coherent policy with action steps, etc. Yes, we have a functioning government. And we might not after the next election.

It just feels like “Dad made reservations at the ‘nicer’ family restaurant in town .. so why can’t we just be grateful instead of talking about all that nonsense that happened last time? Don’t go too far and ruin it. Let’s move on and stop talking about what happened and why. I hope you kids aren’t going to be ungrateful. You wanted this.”

[Susie]

Jul 17, 2024 8:11:11 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

I’m glad to see this, and hope it gets some traction. I think it was wisely put together to not shut down the conversation before it started. Packing the courts sounds great…but there’s not a chance in hell that would get the support needed in Congress, and if he could do it unilaterally, the only people who would be excited about it are those who are 100% already voting for him. Others would call it an abuse of power. (Not arguing that it is, but certainly many people would.)

I know, and I actually agree.  I'm just not sure how much the current measures will do now.  It's good, and it should be done anyway, but it could've prevented so much damage if it were done sooner, and now that that damage is done, well fuck.  

I'm not even talking about if Biden had done it sooner.  If we as a country, or we as Dems had done it sooner.  Imagine if RBG had retired and/or hit a mandatory retirement age during Obama's 2nd term instead of hanging on into Trump's.  We would have an Obama appointee instead of Amy Coney Barrett.  I love RBG, but it was a mistake.  

[DotAndBuzz]

Jul 17, 2024 7:46:16 GMT -5 litebright said:

This feels like too little, too late.

I get this, but also, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

ANY meaningful change he can implement to check the power of the SC is good. Because if shit hits the fan in November, you'd better believe a different administration will implement anything and everything to forever fuck what's left of our democracy. 

Would packing the SC be ideal? Sure. But that's not going to happen in the next 4 months, so in the meantime, I hope he shores up what he can.

[sent]

Even if he endorses all this, does it have to go through the Senate and the House?

Because from where I'm sitting, that's where everything sensible goes to die.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 17, 2024 10:28:50 GMT -5 sent said:

Even if he endorses all this, does it have to go through the Senate and the House?

Because from where I'm sitting, that's where everything sensible goes to die.

Yep. And if it's challenged as unconstitutional, it would be the Supreme Court (potentially, ultimately) who would decide if it's constitutional.

[shauni27]

Jul 17, 2024 10:34:01 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 17, 2024 10:28:50 GMT -5 sent said:

Even if he endorses all this, does it have to go through the Senate and the House?

Because from where I'm sitting, that's where everything sensible goes to die.

Yep. And if it's challenged as unconstitutional, it would be the Supreme Court (potentially, ultimately) who would decide if it's constitutional.

Yup. Because of this I have very little hope that anything will come of this, unfortunately.

[lilac05]

Jul 17, 2024 11:26:52 GMT -5 shauni27 said:

Jul 17, 2024 10:34:01 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Yep. And if it's challenged as unconstitutional, it would be the Supreme Court (potentially, ultimately) who would decide if it's constitutional.

Yup. Because of this I have very little hope that anything will come of this, unfortunately.

I think this Is likely, but it’s yet another reminder for voters of this administration and their future plans, especially if they can get control of the House and Senate. It’s a reminder of just how important down ballot races are, and can possibly help increase voter turnout.

[janegold]

Speaking of amendments, we also need one that convicted felons cannot serve as president.

[fernweh]

Jul 17, 2024 12:41:02 GMT -5 janegold said:

Speaking of amendments, we also need one that convicted felons cannot serve as president.

Honestly I think you should have to pass the background check they do for the highest level of security clearance there is before you are even allowed on the ballot. I have no idea what that entails and how many people could pass it but if you have access to every single secret this country has they need to have some sort of background and not just ‘eh you’re trustworthy because people are willing to vote for you’.

[karinothing]

1) I agree about background checks and security clearance before you can be on the ballot

2) I think SCOTUS should be set up like the FEC commission is set up. No more than 3 members from any one party. Ideally I think SCOTUS should be 3 dems, 3 GOP and one independent (although how you find an independent, I don't know. But someone that has a history of down the middle rulings)

[basilosaurus]

Jul 17, 2024 12:49:08 GMT -5 fernweh said:

Jul 17, 2024 12:41:02 GMT -5 janegold said:

Speaking of amendments, we also need one that convicted felons cannot serve as president.

Honestly I think you should have to pass the background check they do for the highest level of security clearance there is before you are even allowed on the ballot. I have no idea what that entails and how many people could pass it but if you have access to every single secret this country has they need to have some sort of background and not just ‘eh you’re trustworthy because people are willing to vote for you’.

I can tell you from a former military spouse perspective that it takes a long time to process and a shitton of documentation (where did he live in this random week in March 2003? Provide proof. etc. What countries have you or he traveled to over the last decade? Provide exact dates).

Obviously that's expedited for presidential hopefuls. When we were just dating I was a reference for a dorm he stayed in college years in our past. As a spouse many years later, I had to be interviewed in depth. And that's for a pretty basic security clearance, nothing at the level needed for top government officials.

2 of the big issues I remember were foreign contacts and any debts as those are all security risks for obvious reasons. My uncle is not American, and they'd met, and I was nervous about even that question. TFG would absofuckinlutely fail. Just like his son-in-law did, not that it made a difference.

That's all public knowledge that the security questions are of that nature, btw. I'm not exposing government secrets here

I 100% agree you should pass basic security. And if you're ineligible to serve due to 34 fucking felonies, how in the world are you potentially allowed to be CiC?!

[rubytue]

Jul 17, 2024 13:15:34 GMT -5 karinothing said:

1) I agree about background checks and security clearance before you can be on the ballot

2) I think SCOTUS should be set up like the FEC commission is set up. No more than 3 members from any one party. Ideally I think SCOTUS should be 3 dems, 3 GOP and one independent (although how you find an independent, I don't know. But someone that has a history of down the middle rulings)

I wonder if all the commission agencies are like this? I’ve worked at a commission that was 3 or 5 commissioners. And it was always chair from president’s party and 2/1 or 3/2 with the higher number if the administrator’s party. Actually, I take that back, the chair was not always such.  It’s customary for the old chair to resign and let the new president to appoint a new one. And there have been periods with administration changes that it gets weird. 

objectively, this system does work. But it’s not easy on staff. 

[pixy0stix]

I missed an important piece of news today I see.

[karinothing]

Jul 17, 2024 14:48:19 GMT -5 rubytue said:

Jul 17, 2024 13:15:34 GMT -5 karinothing said:

1) I agree about background checks and security clearance before you can be on the ballot

2) I think SCOTUS should be set up like the FEC commission is set up. No more than 3 members from any one party. Ideally I think SCOTUS should be 3 dems, 3 GOP and one independent (although how you find an independent, I don't know. But someone that has a history of down the middle rulings)

I wonder if all the commission agencies are like this? I’ve worked at a commission that was 3 or 5 commissioners. And it was always chair from president’s party and 2/1 or 3/2 with the higher number if the administrator’s party. Actually, I take that back, the chair was not always such.  It’s customary for the old chair to resign and let the new president to appoint a new one. And there have been periods with administration changes that it gets weird. 

objectively, this system does work. But it’s not easy on staff. 

OH, hmm maybe. I am not sure, but I think it would make sense if they were. I don't think we need a system where the members change as much as they could on commissions, but I think we could come up with a reasonable way to balance the courts. The idea that we should be packing courts with conservative or liberal justices (even if I like the latter) seems to go against the idea of justice and fairness.  

[neverfstop]

He should have made this a priority in 2021 when he took office & been working on it since they stole a seat...

The SCOTUS has honestly been broken since before then. 1 Court to handle he business of 300+ million people isn't functioning. Those 9 people have become too powerful and too important (see the stakes when there's a vacancy or not or when they feel they should retire or gamble in Hillary winning....) We need to drastically expand the court, have rotating seats and you can't guarantee which justices will hear any given case (like Trump is sure any of this stuff will go before his bought off judges).

PACK THE COURT!!!!!!

[neverfstop]

Per Axios

Biden is pairing his calls for political reform of the court with a direct rebuke of one of its most significant decisions this year — the 6-3 ruling that presidents have immunity for "official acts" they made in office.

He will use a trip to the LBJ Presidential Library in Texas — for an event to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act — to call for a constitutional amendment that would effectively nullify the immunity decision.
👓 Zoom in: An 18-year term limit would have two major effects.

Eventually, it would equally distribute the number of openings a president would have to fill over a four-year team.
It would also undercut the logic behind the recent trend of nominating young judges with the hope that they stay on the court for a long time.
The new code of ethics would hold Supreme Court justices to the same standard as other federal judges, and require stricter disclosure and recusal rules.

[neverfstop]

Biden's OpEd

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

[ellipses84]

I heard someone say it’s crazy we’ve had the same number of Justices for so long when the population has grown so much. I looked it up, and there’s been 9 justices since 1869, the US population was less than 39 million people in the 1870 census, and the U.S. population is now 342 million people. I liked how Biden mentioned in his op-ed that presidents have had term limits for 75 years.

One solution I’ve heard is there should be more Supreme Court justices with a specific number randomly assigned to each case (even if that remains 9) so no SCJ is guaranteed to be on a specific case. I can see pros and cons for this, but I’d take just about any reform to our corrupt and biased Supreme Court at the moment.

[penguingrrl]

Jul 30, 2024 12:08:59 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

I heard someone say it’s crazy we’ve had the same number of Justices for so long when the population has grown so much. I looked it up, and there’s been 9 justices since 1869, the US population was less than 39 million people in the 1870 census, and the U.S. population is now 342 million people. I liked how Biden mentioned in his op-ed that presidents have had term limits for 75 years.

One solution I’ve heard is there should be more Supreme Court justices with a specific number randomly assigned to each case (even if that remains 9) so no SCJ is guaranteed to be on a specific case. I can see pros and cons for this, but I’d take just about any reform to our corrupt and biased Supreme Court at the moment.

To me the bigger argument for more justices isn’t population growth but rather number of federal court districts. When 9 justices became standard there were 9 federal court districts. Now there are 13 districts. I think the number of justices should mirror the number of districts and that should be put into law prior to expanding to ensure we don’t turn it into a battle where each new administration adds more seats.