Why Doesn't Biden Just Answer The Question?
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Another embarrassing moment for the Biden camp..........
You could just read the law that has been proposed yourself, you know.
Short version - senior justices (those out side the active circle) are used as replacements by seniority for gaps due to early death or retirement.
Why would it? The incentives for timing retirements now is huge, this would be lest. Justices would be appointed the 1st and 3rd year of every presidency, so there isn't much point in timing your retirement.
Unbalanced how?
I'm staying within constitutional powers, there is no way to take it off of the President and Senate without an amendment.
If you have a magic wand, what's your solution?
You're going to have to explain what you mean by a time limit by law to appoint before I comment.
I like the idea of term limits. However this would just start a tit for tat situation. If the Dems increase it then the Republicans will do it the next time they get power. It will be never ending.
If it is just straight expansion, that opens the tit for tat up a lot.
That's why the complete restructure is a better approach. Try to get people on board with making it something people agree will deesclate.
The current proposal in the Congress just does the term limit thing and leaves it at 9. I prefer an expansion because the court hasn't expanded in 100 years even though the country has grown, but if just doing the 18 years thing is all people can agree on I would be ok with that.
Biden now says he's 'not a fan' of court packing.
It will need to happen though.
The only question is whether this turns into Barrett superspreader event #2, and that stops the process.
It will need to happen though.
The only question is whether this turns into Barrett superspreader event #2, and that stops the process.
I read someone proposed 18 year terms. Staggered. Thus every president would get 2 in their term. Takes away the pressure to put up people with limited judicial experience. And stops the games. If Barrett gets confirmed then 4 of the 9 justices were appointed by a president that lost the popular vote.
Of course he isn't a fan of court packing , Republican court packing has been a disaster.
I don't like it either.
Like I've said, court reform, Article III power, or even simple court expansion are all things the Dems should consider.
Khanna and Kennedy have already put that in a bill.
Just because you put appointments in the odd years doesn't mean that both parties will get equal picks. That assumes equal time winning the Presidency and the Senate. If one party wins it more they get more picks.
And can the Senate refuse to seat a judge? Or is there a mechanism to force them to? Mitch delayed seating one, now we have a rushed one.
I have no idea why you would think that would be embarassing for Biden. i think it should be embarrassing to the super spreader in chief that his lemmings are too afraid of Biden to let people hear his views.
LOL. Oh I pay attention and I still have no idea. Maybe you can tell us why someone who is being drowned out or heckled by rude supporters of an opponent should be embarrassed.
Is this what they call a rhetorical question?
Screw it I'll play anyways.......When your opponents fans out number and drown out yours I would say that probably didn't go as you planned.
I believe that Joe will win this election but it has nothing to do with him. He said months ago that ''Mickey mouse'' could beat Trump.
And he's right. What he didn't say was that he is going to be the least popular president ever elected. The ''anybody but'' choice.
Thus the dismal turnouts.
Yes, the judiciary will evolve to be in line with the expressed will of the people. This is good. There is no need whatsoever to keep it forcibly balanced between parties.
You, of ALL people, arguing for making sure that the two party system is entrenched is a bit much.
Khanna's solution on refusing to hear a judge is fine
‘‘If the Senate does not exercise its advice and consent authority with respect to a President’s nominee to the Supreme Court within 120 days after the nomination, 2 the Senate shall be deemed to have waived its advice and 3 consent authority with respect to such nominee, and the nominee shall be seated as a Justice of the Supreme Court.’’
but I would want a mechanism to limit endless rejections. I'd make it that rejecting a judge is effectively a veto override and make it a 2/3 requirement. Ultimately there is no way to completely prevent Constitutional hardball, but as we've discussed, I prefer material improvement over leaving it as is because it can't be perfect. If the Senate keeps stalling on a judge, then it becomes the subject of an election - that's what democratic accountability means. Yes, if you managed to stall two years they would stack up like cordwood, but that is - ultimately - a power given to the Senate in Article II. By making it hard to reject a judge you can limit it, but it can never be completely stopped without amending the constitution.
Remember Trump giving praise to Pence for saying he once talked for a full five minutes without answering a question?
Because, despite that all politicians tell some lies, it's a rare thing that the lie they are telling is to conceal that they intend to unilaterally and fundamentally alter the stucture of American democracy by destroying the independence of the judiciary branch of government forever.
That's a huge deal.
When your opponent's fans attempt to drown you out that is more a sign of their disdain that they and their leader have for the democratic process. it is they and by implication you who should be embarrassed.
And BTW the super spreader in chief is likely to go down as the worst POTUS in history, a clown and an embarrassment to the US. hopefully the hard he has done can be undone.
That is really quite funny coming from a trumpanista. The super spreader in chief has destroyed the independence of virtually every institution of government and politicized same like no other POTUS in history. You have learned projection well from your fearless leaser.
