SCOTUS news and opinions

[Lexicus]

Give. Me. A break.

Yes, this is my reaction to some cretin pretending that Joe Biden's career or age has anything to do with the merits of Court reform

 

[Hygro]

The guy who's been in politics for like 50 years total.

Let me put it this way. If you were born after 1955, you have never not known who Joe Biden was by the time you became of voting age...
Give. Me. A break.

That's like being mad a judge who served for 5 years because he was a lawyer for 30.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is just not true. The constitution's framers intended their republic to have no organized parties at all. The idea was that the three-branch structure would lead to a situation where each branch would jealously guard its own prerogatives, prestige, and authority against the other two branches, which would lead to the branches checking each other effectively. The framers in fact explicitly wrote that the capture of parts of the government by "parties," whose interests could/would supercede the interests of the individuals involved, would break the system and render the checks & balances effectively inoperative.

I am happy to rephrase it as "overwhelmingly supermajority unpopular" if you're going to decide to originalist on me instead of adapting the concept forward 200 years.

Though having you go originalist does kind of make my night.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Yes, this is my reaction to some cretin pretending that Joe Biden's career or age has anything to do with the merits of Court reform

You say "reform", I just see it as Biden trying to reverse decisions he doesn't like. The proposals for 18 year limits are fairly obviously aimed at certain individuals: Thomas (confirmed 1991), Alito (2005), Roberts (2006), they being the first to already reach the term limit and also the "conservative" justices. The next would've been Sotomayor (2009 to 2027).
I guess you like that. That's fine; I don't care.

But the way this could've been done is compulsory retirement at a certain age (maybe at 65-70). That would've put Thomas first (b. 1948), then Alito (b.1950), then Sotomayor (b.1954).
That is, assuming any of Biden's proposals are for active members, which he isn't really clear on...

That's like being mad a judge who served for 5 years because he was a lawyer for 30.

No this example doesn't really work because these two don't represent a huge swath of people.
A politician like Biden simply changed jobs from senator to VP in 2009 and again to President in 2021.
I presume you don't think that's a problem. Legally no. But to me it is still within the same profession of vote-getting, and is just kind of scummy that someone like that doesn't just move on.

 

[Gorbles]

But to me it is still within the same profession of vote-getting, and is just kind of scummy that someone like that doesn't just move on.

Complaining that a politician is a career politician has to be intentionally not getting the point.

Now, I think an age limit would be great, but there's nothing wrong with Biden suggesting term limits nomatter how much I like or don't like Biden, because it's how a bunch of things already work.

 

[Samson]

is just kind of scummy that someone like that doesn't just move on

FYI, Biden Drops Out

 

[Lexicus]

I am happy to rephrase it as "overwhelmingly supermajority unpopular" if you're going to decide to originalist on me instead of adapting the concept forward 200 years.

Though having you go originalist does kind of make my night.

This is a willful misinterpretation of my point, which is that the original intent of the framers failed, has led to an unworkable system, and consequently that system needs to be reformed.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it still works exactly as intended, but the current result is politically undesirable to you, so you don't like it at this moment and would like to break it at least somewhat. You know that thing you say Thomas and Alito do? I just read a sample of it. Keep practicing, you'll get better at it like they have done.

Look man, I'm not wilfully misinterpreting. I just remember your conversations with the big blue avatar'd guy who was very smart where you both agreed it was politically necessary to lie.

Still made my night on CFC. So indeed, ty.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it still works exactly as intended

An alternative fact? I'd suggest reading federalist 51...

You know that thing you say Thomas and Alito do?

Exactly what you're doing: take an outcome that benefits the partisan interest of the GOP and claim it's what the framers intended.

 

[Farm Boy]

The lies are degrading in quality, stick with the originalist take. It was better.

 

[Lexicus]

*shrug* i agree the lies are degrading in quality. Look at the facts:

-The Supreme Court has a majority of justices loyal to the "faction" of the former President

-That loyalty has led them to grant the former President the same "absolute immunity" once enjoyed by King George III

-There is no Constitutional recourse, because enough members of that same faction are sitting in Congress to prevent a vote to convict any of the justices for abuse of power, corruption, or other high crimes & misdemeanors

We are being asked to believe that this set of facts represents the system working "exactly as intended." This is exactly the sort of deception the "originalist" Justices routinely engage in, right down to the gaslighting of those who point out how ridiculous the situation actually is.

 

[Hygro]

Founders thought by having 3 competing branches there would be dynamic stalemate where each united branch would team up with the other weakest to take down the strongest. That's the FFA match logic. It's smart at that level of analysis but.. In hindsight, of course it failed. And they could have known. They already knew the same people were switching from one branch to another but keeping the same friends with the same agendas. Parties took root before we passed the Bill of Rights.

I wonder what if could even take for to have a "3 powers in eternal struggle/balance, always siding with the people, party-less, to make a united peaceful whole" system. Let's consider our system "two parties using 3 branches to trade advantage both siding with half the people to make a united peaceful whole" to leave the door open for more answers.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, it's "failed."

Horse****. It's hard to get rid of justices because of this right now. Namely, you all in this moment. Which is nothing new under the sun.

I mean, come on, it's not even good horse****. Once you go with "it's malfunctioned because there are parties" you have a blanket -=whateverthe**** conclusion=- line of <snickers>logic going.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Founders thought by having 3 competing branches there would be dynamic stalemate where each united branch would team up with the other weakest to take down the strongest. That's the FFA match logic. It's smart at that level of analysis but.. In hindsight, of course it failed. And they could have known. They already knew the same people were switching from one branch to another but keeping the same friends with the same agendas. Parties took root before we passed the Bill of Rights.

I wonder what if could even take for to have a "3 powers in eternal struggle/balance, always siding with the people, party-less, to make a united peaceful whole" system. Let's consider our system "two parties using 3 branches to trade advantage both siding with half the people to make a united peaceful whole" to leave the door open for more answers.

The thing is, the Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution was flawed, our system of government was flawed, and knew that times would change and gave an out by putting in a way to add to and change it, and since the document was first signed and ratified, it has had 17 additions added in the past 233 years.

 

[Samson]

it has had 17 additions added in the past 233 years

One of them was taking away the sauce, and another was giving it back while you still have the electoral college and lifetime appointments. Good job there ;P

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, it's "failed."

Yes, I mean, I too think the President being absolutely immune from any consequences for ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate his opponents is both fine and what the framers intended. Nosirree, no failure here or anywhere nearby!

I wonder what if could even take for to have a "3 powers in eternal struggle/balance, always siding with the people, party-less, to make a united peaceful whole" system. Let's consider our system "two parties using 3 branches to trade advantage both siding with half the people to make a united peaceful whole" to leave the door open for more answers.

The answer is essentially that you would need a kind of elite consensus-driven politics where everything is materially controlled by the gentry (so material questions aka "class politics" just do not play out within the formal political system) and "factions" depend almost entirely on personal or familial alliances and are thus contingent and ever-changing.

This is the kind of politics the founders wanted to set up, but their plan fell apart pretty much as soon as Washington left office.

This, incidentally, is why speaking of anything in the US government today "working as the founders intended" is absurd. The system is designed to work under conditions of elite consensus where "existential-level" material questions simply don't arise. Slavery exploded the elite consensus once and the result was the republic being shattered.

 

[Farm Boy]

One of them was taking away the sauce, and another was giving it back while you still have the electoral college and lifetime appointments. Good job there ;P

Thank you!

At least we tried it when women finally got a voice and were so very tired of being drunk bankrupted and sauce-beaten.

 

[Gorbles]

It's funny how "but you can do good things with it" is used as a counter to it being broken.

I can write code that does good things. That doesn't mean it at the same time isn't broken. Different metrics. Disclaimer for analogy, etc.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Biden: 18 year term limits for Justices, code of ethics, constitutional amendment where no president is above the law.

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

The 18 term limit would be retroactive to the start of any justice's time on the bench.

You say "reform", I just see it as Biden trying to reverse decisions he doesn't like. The proposals for 18 year limits are fairly obviously aimed at certain individuals: Thomas (confirmed 1991), Alito (2005), Roberts (2006), they being the first to already reach the term limit and also the "conservative" justices. The next would've been Sotomayor (2009 to 2027).
I guess you like that. That's fine; I don't care.

But the way this could've been done is compulsory retirement at a certain age (maybe at 65-70). That would've put Thomas first (b. 1948), then Alito (b.1950), then Sotomayor (b.1954).
That is, assuming any of Biden's proposals are for active members, which he isn't really clear on...


No this example doesn't really work because these two don't represent a huge swath of people.
A politician like Biden simply changed jobs from senator to VP in 2009 and again to President in 2021.
I presume you don't think that's a problem. Legally no. But to me it is still within the same profession of vote-getting, and is just kind of scummy that someone like that doesn't just move on.

To begin, Biden was elected by citizen voters for every position he has held. None of the Justices have been.

So, would you approve of removing Grassley and McConnell because they are too old?

 

[uppi]

The answer is essentially that you would need a kind of elite consensus-driven politics where everything is materially controlled by the gentry (so material questions aka "class politics" just do not play out within the formal political system) and "factions" depend almost entirely on personal or familial alliances and are thus contingent and ever-changing.

If you had those elite consensus-driven politics, why would you need those separate branches for "checks and balances"? One branch with a large and diverse enough composition would be sufficient to reach that consensus. And if there was a broad enough consensus in the US Congress, any challenge by the Supreme Court could be overcome, anyway. For an example, look at Switzerland, which has much more consensus-based politics, but much less checks and balances (basically, the Swiss parliament can do anything it can get a majority for).

In my opinion, for checks and balances between branches to work, they would need to be composed by people who are more loyal to the institution than they are to their politics. People who would oppose a power grab by a different branch on principle, even if it would be beneficial to their own cause. Usually, you have a few of those, but ultimately in most cases they just ended up as a speedbump. That speedbump is important, because it gives the people the chance to stop what is happening by voting out the responsible politicians. But the people need to take that chance. So ultimately, all checks and balances only work as long as the people actively support them with their votes. Which does not seem to happen in US politics anymore.