Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Releases Final Report

Suffice it to say any attempt to pack the court will be lauded by the present
media as the greatest thing since compound interest. But you know they'll try,
even though swearing up and down no such thing is happening, General Sun.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The commission tasked by President Joe Biden with studying potential changes to the Supreme Court has released its final draft report, a cautious take on proposals for expanding the court and setting possible term limits. The 36-member bipartisan commission was not charged with making recommendations under the White House order that created it. As a result, much of the final report from the group, largely composed of academics who have been studying court reform and holding hearings, is context and history that may be used going forward in proposals to introduce changes.

To even read the names of the 'panel' 's principals makes my blood boil.
Suffice it also to say the Obamites never really left; because the
obvious policy is being written for the Bidenites by proxy and THE BOSS.

The Biden Administration even admits the panel has no authority
or in fact responsibility under the Constitution to change a damned
thing about the SCOTUS-- but evidently sabre rattling curricula at
Yale include drool bibs.
wibv.com

I need to go start some tuna casserole. The safest thing in it
will be the Velveeta. There is no legitimate government here.
There is NO logical argument to the contrary after January 6.
I now long for the good old days when there was, at any
governmental level, a regulated and viable mental health
system.Reply or not. But if you want positive results start
saving your old brass and anneal it regularly.

EDIT:: Reparaphasing for clarity, "largely composed of
communists who have been studying covert and overt court
dismantling; and holding highly approved subversion hearings
in the prospect of obtaining perpetual, absolute power...

a reply to: derfreebie

Why you so wound up about this? It carries no legal clout and politicians on either side can cite cherrypicked pros and cons that already confirm with their institutional biases which they would have done even without this.

a reply to: derfreebie

I've said for years being seated for life is bullsh@@, not only that they should be elected and serve terms like the senate and have term limits.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: derfreebie

Why you so wound up about this? It carries no legal clout and politicians on either side can cite cherrypicked pros and cons that already confirm with their institutional biases which they would have done even without this.

I know, Augie.. the clout doesn't exist any more than
in FDR's time. But clout is perceived, and the present rank and
vile as perceptive of the law as my baby sister LPN, the mileage
compared to 1931 could vary plenty.

originally posted by: derfreebie
But clout is perceived, and the present rank and
vile as perceptive of the law as my baby sister LPN, the mileage
compared to 1931 could vary plenty.

The only thing I read in there that makes sense to me would be some sort of term limit and there might be a general consensus on that, anything else won't happen.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: derfreebie
But clout is perceived, and the present rank and
vile as perceptive of the law as my baby sister LPN, the mileage
compared to 1931 could vary plenty.

The only thing I read in there that makes sense to me would be some sort of term limit and there might be a general consensus on that, anything else won't happen.

IF it were down to just a term limit, I would advocate for EVERYBODY.
the legislators that axed their own golden geese would go down in
the anals of neato. Soapy. High Definition.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TomCollin
a reply to: derfreebie

I've said for years being seated for life is bullsh@@, not only that they should be elected and serve terms like the senate and have term limits.

You do understand, that the reason they were seated for life and not subject to re-election, was in large part to minimize corruption?

Mind you “life” was much shorter on average, nor did that alleviate corruption in appointing SCJs…in my opinion, but elections as everyone has seen are entirely subject to corruption.

Hell Dr. Oz is carpet bagging right now to get elected as a Rino Senator in PA using his parents addy,Hillary did it in NYC. Redistricting…George Soros DAs, need I go on?

As a result, much of the final report from the group, largely composed of academics who have been studying court reform and holding hearings, is context and history that may be used going forward in proposals to introduce changes.

"Reform" is code for making the illegal legal, just like immigration "reform."

When was the last time you heard "reform" used to increase the rights of average, law abiding citizens?

The only thing I find All seem to agree on is TERM LIMITS. For Congress and now for the Supreme Court would be a great improvement on a system that seems to be more about political gamesmanship than deciding Constitutionality and making laws that improve average Americans lives.

Senator and Representative were NOT MEANT to be life time jobs. They were actually PART TIME jobs in the early days of our Republic.

The other problem is gerrymandering. ON BOTH SIDES. For God's sake, this is a no brainer. Get the count of how many districts there are in the contiguous United States, then divide the Country into a North/South, East/West grid. And where every you end up is what it is. Otherwise the nutcases on both sides are going to take over this Country, while the other 60-70% of us watch them burn it all down.

Time for a third Party, the Sanity Party, because we are getting too many nuts in both Parties. And while I think the Republicans take the cake when it comes to nutty elected officials, frankly both Parties SUCK right now.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

The Constitution does not expressly give lifetime appointments to Justices.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

But you can't do that.

When God handed down the 12 Amendments, on mount Independence National Historical Park, they were set in stone for all time (except for the two they removed, and 17 they added, later)!

Biden's Supreme Court Commission breaks all records

and releases Final Report

. . . in less than a year.

No government commission studying any meaningful problem
has ever reached a conclusion in less that 5 years.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

The reason that they are elected for life is to control corruption. If a supreme court justice just worked eight years max, he might be tempted by big money with a promise of a high paying job in the future to vote the way of the individual they are making a decision about. I wish they would have a regulation that anyone on the FDA high power jobs could not take a future job for a pharma company, but sadly most of those in high places there get jobs lobbying for or working for the Pharma companies. Just think of how corrupt our court system would become if the judges were not put in office for life.

a reply to: TomCollin

By design, it is not a political office. So not elected. Also the reason for life appointments. To keep politics out of it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Dont bother weighing in on US constitutional matters. Its clear you dont understand it.

a reply to: derfreebie

The Constitution won't stop this administration from court packing.

I'm surprized they haven't done it already, to be honest.

originally posted by: sraven
Biden's Supreme Court Commission breaks all records

and releases Final Report

. . . in less than a year.

No government commission studying any meaningful problem
has ever reached a conclusion in less that 5 years.

That was a tremendous waste of money. Go Brandon!

I wish I could get one of these easy jobs on a government commission writing boring papers nobody will ever read and will never be acted on.

They tend to pay rather well.

a reply to: TheRedneck


But not impossible.

An idea that I MIGHT support.

Unlike the democrat party's 2nd shameless attempt to pack the court in a century.

Also a STRONG NO to electing the justices.

I spent a good deal of my life in Wisconsin and know all too well what happens when supremes are elected.