The tolerant left at it again

H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Racist who complains about the fake media posts endless links from the fake media.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Donald Trump Says He’d Like to Punch a Protester in the Face


So much racism.
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Do our bidding or be eliminated

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: 'Heal' or face restructuring

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction that must be remedied.
BIDEN CALLED COURT PACKING A 'BONEHEAD IDEA' DURING A 1983 HEARING
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.
Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, with "court-packing" being a common — though highly controversial — suggestion. Increasing the number of justices on the court would allow the president to shift the balance on the bench by loading up justices of his or her preference.
Democratic candidates including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

SUPREME COURT PAVES WAY FOR TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO USE MILITARY FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.
Yet other candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden has come out against court-packing, as has Bernie Sanders, though the Vermont senator has suggested rotating judges to other courts.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, "Nine seems to be a good number."
The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an "industrial-strength influence campaign" to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.
If the court still decides to hear the case, a ruling against New York City could prevent other cities and states from passing similar gun control laws.
Conservatives currently outnumber liberals on the Supreme Court 5-4, but the past year featured a multitude of cases where conservatives — including President Trump's picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — sided with the liberal bloc.
Click to expand...

What's your thoughts on this T-bones?
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,430
9,577
113
Washington DC
Well, first, why don't we look at what the Constitution says?

SECTION 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

U.S. Const., Art. III.

So. . . life tenure is baked into Article III, which means one idea I have heard, limiting the terms of the justices, would require a Constitutional amendment. I think that's a non-starter. There have been hundreds of proposed amendments, of which a total of seventeen have made it through (the first ten were basically in the Constitution from the git-go).

A far more intriguing idea for "de-politicizing" the Court would be to expand it to fifteen seats, with ten seats filled by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and five seats to be filled either by judges on rotation from the Federal appeals courts (again, requires a Constitutional amendment), or by unanimous consent of the ten traditionally-appointed justices. This MAY be possible without an amendment.

Many people don't know this, but beyond the provisions of Section 1 of Article Three, everything about the Court, including the number of justices, is set by the Judiciary Act of 1790, as amended.

Personally, I think the easiest fix is to go back to the requirement of a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate to confirm. That seems to have worked pretty well in getting relatively politically moderate justices on the bench.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,430
9,577
113
Washington DC
Twin_Moose said:
Thanks for that T-bones
Click to expand...
Sure. But to be honest, what you think is more important. By "you," of course I don't mean Canadians, but non-lawyers.

One of the real problems with the law and the courts is that they tend to be of, by, and for lawyers, but if they lose the confidence of the 99.6% of Americans who aren't lawyers, we've got a problem.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom