Go get 'em, Joe!
send those perjuring cunts to jail
by Anonymous | reply 1 | July 29, 2024 1:26 PM |
Curious to see how the GOP will attack this. I look at youtube comments to get the right wing message since nearly every YouTube video is overwhelmed by reactionary russian bots. All they have so far is that crooked Joe needs to put term limits on congress first.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | July 29, 2024 1:42 PM |
Great first step, but as we all know there is little chance that any such reform will pass Congress until the Democrats hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and enough of a majority in the House that the language can pass even when losing a few Democratic votes. IOW, not this session. But what this does is put the matter in people's minds and gives the Dems the opportunity to speak about the SCOTUS trying to remake the nation as the legislate and rule from the bench.
The Constitutional amendment talk is an even greater lift. We haven't passed an amendment in over 30 years, and not one with such substantial significance in probably closer to a hundred years. You're not going to get a red state to ratify an amendment limiting the powers of the SCOTUS until they are ruled against as consistently as the blue states and liberals have been in recent years.
I think the ultimate solution (assuming the Dems hold the Senate and pick up the House) is court expansion which I believe could be rammed through the Senate as part of a budget matter or perhaps since the Senate eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments, the bill could be passed by simple majority. But the critical key is that it be done right away (as in a first hundred days matter) because the fight this will entail will be substantial and we must have the new justices seated before any challenge to this or any other liberal priorities is before the Court.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | July 29, 2024 2:00 PM |
I'd like Harris to take the gamble and expand the court... but to keep absolutely silent about it until she's elected.
I could see her making the move, if that what is takes. One of Joe's true weaknesses was his sentimentality about the institutions. I get incrementalism and the center, but I often felt he had a view of the institutions as they were twenty years ago and haven't been since.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | July 29, 2024 2:35 PM |
To change the length of appointments for the Supreme Court would require, because the term is set by the Constitution, a Constitutional Amendment which is practically impossible in our time. Two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and ratification by three/quarters of the states?
Snowball’s chance in hell territory.
by Anonymous | reply 5 | July 29, 2024 3:13 PM |
He can’t do anything and he’s basically irrelevant now, thank god.
by Anonymous | reply 6 | July 29, 2024 4:00 PM |
R5 is 1000% right.
by Anonymous | reply 7 | July 29, 2024 4:00 PM |
I think the phrase “active status” at R8 is a key one in the ideas Biden has. In order to get around the need for an amendment, decide some framework in which after 18 years the justice is still on the court, but as a non-voting emeritus member.
I’d have to know more but if it’s what I think it’s an unstable, and frankly unconstitutional, runaround which will never survive scrutiny.
This policy statement is more campaigning than actually agenda setting anyway so it’s a moot point.
by Anonymous | reply 9 | July 29, 2024 5:05 PM |
He needs to stop fighting the presidential immunity ruling and start USING it.
by Anonymous | reply 10 | July 29, 2024 5:10 PM |
[quote]Great first step, but as we all know there is little chance that any such reform will pass Congress until the Democrats hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and enough of a majority in the House that the language can pass even when losing a few Democratic votes
Any democrat who doesn't vote for it should be primaried in the next election. Plain and simple.
Why are so many democrats weak and spineless? Biden's standing up and fighting. And some of you are more concerned over what Republicans will do than in what is morally and logically right
by Anonymous | reply 11 | July 29, 2024 5:14 PM |
Good. As a previous poster said, this gets the idea in people’s minds. Whether it goes anywhere or not.
Look, there were a lot of people who weren’t paying much attention but who got spooked by the “President as king” bullshit these hacks vomited up to protect the traitor. That was just a little too far and they started looking around at what else was going on.
Putting this out there gets people talking and thinking about it. Gets it into the public consciousness, as it were.
by Anonymous | reply 12 | July 29, 2024 5:51 PM |
Next up: dissolve the antiquated Electoral College.
by Anonymous | reply 13 | July 29, 2024 8:06 PM |
first thing-change scotus from 9 to 13 - this is logical as their are 13 US appellate courts. as a reminder, Moscow Mitch forever changed our scotus system when he denied Obama his rightful pick.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | July 29, 2024 8:11 PM |
Kamala is going to replace Long Dong and Alito. Poetic justice.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | July 29, 2024 9:18 PM |
From your lips, r15.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | July 29, 2024 9:48 PM |
IF Kamala gets in and we get a few Congress seats back, they really should start impeachment proceedings against (in order) Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh.
I don't care how political it looks. Even if the impeachment attempts are played out and unsuccessful, we need to see these guys testify again - under oath! The stress might cause them to resign before an impeachment is followed thru.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | July 29, 2024 10:54 PM |
R17, yes. It has long been rumored that clarence was ready to vacate due to financial considerations (he could make tons of $ as a former justice). And that is why the right wing donors started dumping $ his way.
by Anonymous | reply 18 | July 30, 2024 1:02 AM |