Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Biden Supreme Court study panel unanimously approves final report


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

A bipartisan commission tasked by the White House with exploring possible Supreme Court reforms voted unanimously Tuesday to submit the group’s final report to President Biden.

The 34-member group sounded a neutral tone across its report's nearly 300 pages, referencing “profound disagreement” over a controversial proposal to expand the number of justices, for instance, while declining to adopt a position.

Instead, the study traces the history of the court reform debate and delineates arguments for and against various proposals, occasionally noting areas of bipartisan support, as in the case of imposing term limits on the justices.  

The findings, which bear the imprimatur of some of the nation’s foremost constitutional thinkers and court watchers, are likely to shape the contours of future debates over proposals like limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction or providing Congress special authority to override decisions.

 

Link

That last bit I bolded...No F'n Way!!  are you kidding me??  Every office in government needs term limits though, including justices but senators more than any other IMO.  

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to do something to avoid letting a minority party with fascist ambitions have too much power, I say pack the court then close the door behind them for at least the next 20 years.

And if you Republicans have any problems with this? Two words. Merrick. Garland. Mitch started it. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

We need to do something to avoid letting a minority party with fascist ambitions have too much power, I say pack the court then close the door behind them for at least the next 20 years.

And if you Republicans have any problems with this? Two words. Merrick. Garland. Mitch started it. 

You are funny (or stupid). You're all for democracy (if it goes your way) but against every check and balance which has kept it intact and in balance for the last 240 years.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

You are funny (or stupid). You're all for democracy (if it goes your way) but against every check and balance which has kept it intact and in balance for the last 240 years.  

Pal, you can either have Trump trying to grab our democracy by the ***** and have dudes in buffalo hides invade the capitol to overturn the election, or complain about people adding seats to the supreme court to protect from those actions, but it cannot be both. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Pal, you can either have Trump trying to grab our democracy by the ***** and have dudes in buffalo hides invade the capitol to overturn the election, or complain about people adding seats to the supreme court to protect from those actions, but it cannot be both. 

Please explain how expanding the supreme court would prevent that?  I most certainly can can complain about all of the above and none of them would fix or counter the other.  The above is one of the most illogical, nonsense statements I've read for a while.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The above is one of the most illogical, nonsense statements I've read for a while.

Autochthon says "Here hold my beer"

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Please explain how expanding the supreme court would prevent that?  I most certainly can can complain about all of the above and none of them would fix or counter the other.  The above is one of the most illogical, nonsense statements I've read for a while.

Preventing gerrymandering which allows fascist nutcases to get elected despite the majority of the population not wanting it, for one. Also the whole 'rights shouldn't be taken away because Jesus thinks abortion is icky' thing, a liberal appointee wouldn't remove Roe, to say nothing of a potential way to get rid of the /atrocious/ Citizens United decision which allows endless money flowing into fascist coffers from far right special interests. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Autochthon1990 said:

Preventing gerrymandering which allows fascist nutcases to get elected despite the majority of the population not wanting it, for one.

Democrats as guilty as Republicans on this point. 

 

1 minute ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Also the whole 'rights shouldn't be taken away because Jesus thinks abortion is icky' thing, a liberal appointee wouldn't remove Roe,

What a shallow and dumb view of the arguments of pro-lifers.

2 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

to say nothing of a potential way to get rid of the /atrocious/ Citizens United decision which allows endless money flowing into fascist coffers from far right special interests. 

You should start a thread on that one, I have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Democrats as guilty as Republicans on this point. 

 

What a shallow and dumb view of the arguments of pro-lifers.

You should start a thread on that one, I have no idea what you're talking about.

There is literally no secular reason to not allow abortion, and no, they're not. Democrats aren't perfect, but Republicans are BY FAR the worst when it comes to Gerrymandering. John Oliver  did a great video about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Autochthon1990 said:

There is literally no secular reason to not allow abortion

There is.  Some people (not all of them religious) consider it murder, some at a much earlier point in the pregnancy than others.  Murder is a crime therefore they view it as a crime against the most powerless people on the planet. You don't have to be religious to hold this view and many pro lifers are not.  Personally I'm for using RvW as a basis for federal law which will stop state challenges, something any senator that actually gave a dang about abortions rights could have initiated beginning in 1973, but they have not made one move in that direction.  this is not a thread about abortion, if you want to argue the fine points of abortion please do so here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

but Republicans are BY FAR the worst when it comes to Gerrymandering. John Oliver  did a great video about that. 

John Oliver.  Yeah.  He's an authority.  He's a left wing comedy show host.  Using him as a source is the akin to me using Alex Jones.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

We need to do something to avoid letting a minority party with fascist ambitions have too much power,

The democrats are who you are referring to, I assume.   It describes them to a T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

We need to do something to avoid letting a minority party with fascist ambitions have too much power, I say pack the court then close the door behind them for at least the next 20 years.

And if you Republicans have any problems with this? Two words. Merrick. Garland. Mitch started it. 

As I understand it, the Supreme Court is designed/meant to be colourblind when it comes to politics, rather it comments/rules purely on matters of legality. It is also a co-equal arm of the system, not a validatory organ of the party in power.

What you want is a rubber stamper of Democrat-only decisions. Something that exists only to validate “your guys” and stymie “their guys” and you’re hiding behind a mask of “I’m fighting fascism” while doing so, while in fact enacting the exact sort of move every historical fascists do when in power. You can do better than that Auto. 
Literally the first thing fascist governments do is subvert or cripple the judiciary, and here you are wanting to subvert the independence of the judiciary in the name of “the people” and “stopping the enemy”. 
 

Ithink a 51 member Supreme Court, wherein each member is the senior most judge from each state, might work. At the very least at 51 members there’ll never be a deadlocked decision. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ithink a 51 member Supreme Court, wherein each member is the senior most judge from each state, might work. At the very least at 51 members there’ll never be a deadlocked decision. 

I'm not for that.  I had in mind something like we stick with nine, and have term limits that will give each president one pick per presidential term so 36 year terms per justice.  The math wouldn't really work out until Amy Comey Barret is retired after 36 years but after that all of them would have the same amount of time in office and each president would have one or two picks depending on if he gets re-elected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Preventing gerrymandering which allows fascist nutcases to get elected despite the majority of the population not wanting it, for one. Also the whole 'rights shouldn't be taken away because Jesus thinks abortion is icky' thing, a liberal appointee wouldn't remove Roe, to say nothing of a potential way to get rid of the /atrocious/ Citizens United decision which allows endless money flowing into fascist coffers from far right special interests. 

The current supreme court turned denied every challenge to the election that came to it. 

Seems like they did their job. 

Edit: I meant to quote your post before this one.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I'm not for that.  I had in mind something like we stick with nine, and have term limits that will give each president one pick per presidential term so 36 year terms per justice.  The math wouldn't really work out until Amy Comey Barret is retired after 36 years but after that all of them would have the same amount of time in office and each president would have one or two picks depending on if he gets re-elected.

20 year term limits, roughly the definition of “a generation” and long enough for things to have changed radically in the world outside the SC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Pal, you can either have Trump trying to grab our democracy by the ***** and have dudes in buffalo hides invade the capitol to overturn the election, or complain about people adding seats to the supreme court to protect from those actions, but it cannot be both. 

So political opinion is on a bell curve and you are way over on the left where it is practically flat.

I'd say packing the SCOTUS is a hundred times more dangerous then a couple hundred yahoos invading the capital building for three or four hours. And, apparently, more where eventually caught and will be punished. 

I'd say you're using hyperbole statements, but hyperbole's definition implies its not supposed to be taken literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if there's going to be real reform on this it will involve term limits. Maybe they have to be reapproved by the Senate every 8 years, or something. 

Packing the court is just a stupid knee jerk reaction. And more likely to blow up in their faces then not. See "nuclear opition" and Harry Reid, if you need a primer on stupid short sighted governing by Democrat leadership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, OverSword said:

John Oliver.  Yeah.  He's an authority.  He's a left wing comedy show host.  Using him as a source is the akin to me using Alex Jones.

It's a good episode on how it works, and you cannot compare anybody on the left to Alex Jones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

As I understand it, the Supreme Court is designed/meant to be colourblind when it comes to politics, rather it comments/rules purely on matters of legality. It is also a co-equal arm of the system, not a validatory organ of the party in power.

What you want is a rubber stamper of Democrat-only decisions. Something that exists only to validate “your guys” and stymie “their guys” and you’re hiding behind a mask of “I’m fighting fascism” while doing so, while in fact enacting the exact sort of move every historical fascists do when in power. You can do better than that Auto. 
Literally the first thing fascist governments do is subvert or cripple the judiciary, and here you are wanting to subvert the independence of the judiciary in the name of “the people” and “stopping the enemy”. 
 

Ithink a 51 member Supreme Court, wherein each member is the senior most judge from each state, might work. At the very least at 51 members there’ll never be a deadlocked decision. 

In theory it is, in practice it gave us Bush II. And I suppose when only one party traffics in reality these days and the other one has delved into whacko conspiracy theories and outright antidemocratic fascism, then yeah, since I want the court to also traffic in /observable reality/. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

20 year term limits, roughly the definition of “a generation” and long enough for things to have changed radically in the world outside the SC. 

I like the 36 year term better it gives each president one pick per term.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

hyperbole's definition implies its not supposed to be taken literally

He doesn't know the difference.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Jones was entertaining. He has gone downhill though. After his lawsuit I think he took out his aggression on his listeners. I think he is skewing the truth most the time. What I mean is I think he takes some obscure and disturbing truth from modern times and then makes up something similar and parallel to it, and that is what he reports. I have searched for some things he has reported on and found no reference online for it. There are sometimes other disturbing truths you can find that are not what he said, but are somewhat similar. Totally different stories though. The best one I can remember was another another radio host, Glenn Beck. He was reporting that they were using aborted fetuses to fertilize the fields in Canada. I looked online for any story and didn't find one. What I found instead was about a company called Senomyx which uses human embryonic cells to produce sweeteners. A bunch of companies were affiliated with it like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Nestlè and others. 70 of the 77 patents contained HEK293 Cells according to this news article from 2011. I think the companies tried to say they were using the 7 without or something.  Senomyx has since been bought by Firmenich in 2018.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-bizarro-world-boycotted-over-embryonic-cells-linked-to-lo-cal-soda/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.