Biden proposes sweeping changes to the Supreme Court

Are you sure you got this right? I've had two posters that have told be Biden or Harris never have planned any changes to the Supreme Court? I do see where there is concern because the court has become so radical with the appointments of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

 

By congess......its called oversight

 

That has nothing to do with the checks and balances in place.

Regardless, Ill play your logical fallacy game. Do we really want to start to evaluate congressional lobbyists, insider trading, and how wealthy our congressmen and women get earning $174K a year? That is the organization you want to install "ethics reform" in the SC?

The fact is, and in alignment with nearly every action the left takes lately, they are driven by 100% partisan politics. Quite literally tearing down the institutions of government and our historic methods of checks and balances because they don't like Trump or don't like the conservative court.

This is simply party politics at it's worse. If they want to play that game, Amendments and Impeachments are written into the process. Follow those.

 

Yes

 

Why?

 

What McConnell did has zero to do with what Reid did.
First of all the change (the so called "nuclear option") was a change voted on by the entire Senate. What McConnell did was the decision of ONE MAN
Secondly the "nuclear option" specifically left out nominations to the Supreme Court. It still requires a 60 vote "super majority" to move on with a Supreme Court nomination.
Thirdly, the "nuclear option" removed a requirement for 60 votes for cloture (a vote to end a debate) that had only been in place since 1917. It was not something the Founding Fathers had put in place.
Fourth, the invocation of the "nuclear option" was done because of the Republican abuse of the system to block nominations.

So your post means nothing.

 

Congress doesn't have the power to enforce rules upon the Judicial Branch. It violates the separation of powers.

 

Because I want to make sure that EVERYONE who is involved in government (espcially at high levels) has someone making sure they aren't doing things like Clarence is doing. I don't care if they are legislative, executive or judicial.

 

interesting.

can you please share YOUR post, or hell... anything from any member of the Democrat leadership regarding ethics reforms and adjustments to our balance of powers to strike out legislative crooks.


Ill patiently wait.

 

Sounds like you'd like government without politics. You'll have to figure out how to do it without human beings too, because you're not going to have one without the other.

 

You will never have a government without politics
What you can have is a government that minimizes corruption
One of the ways to do that is to prevent too much power falling into the hands of a single individual or small group and even then, making sure that any such individual or group is constantly held to a standard that minimizes corruption.

The Senate Majority leader was NEVER supposed to have complete and unfettered veto power over a nomination, by the President, to the Supreme Court.

 

haha…youre adorable when you’re angry, but you’re only confirming what I said. Reid and McConnell did the same thing. You only consider the latter’d actions different because you didn’t like it. Turnabout is fair play son. Just glad Reid croaked AFTER Gorsuch was confirmed.

 

They are not the same thing, you know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread knows it.
But since you have no other argument I guess that's all you have to cling to.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

 

the procedure was the same in both cases. It just resulted in three Supreme Court justices for us and not for you.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees/amp/

Harry Reid even said it should be extended to the Supreme Court after Hillary wins the White House. I’m so happy he lived just long enough to see that backfire. What a loser.

 

I checked it out and it makes no mention of the word felon.

 

Meaning the only ones who could change it would be voting themselves out of a cushy job for life, so it's a non starter.

 

I didn't say it did.

 

Wait, you think democrats are trying to destroy the institutions of democracy ? JFC you cannot be serious here. What check or balance did the dems destroy? Be very specific on what they did to destroy accountability in our government.

I dont care who appointed who, if they are corrupt, then they need to be helped accountable, The fat that you absolutely know that Thomas is taking money and trips form Harlan Crow proves that it you who doesnt want those checks and balances, and yet you claim it is the left trying to destroy them ? Your not being serious here….

 

For the last GD time….congress can impeach a SC justice and then vote to remove them. Its been done before FFS.

Just walk away before you embarrass yourself….

 

Thus proving my assertion that it was NOT the same procedure.
The 60 vote cloture rule for Supreme Court nominees is still in place.

Reid had little choice since the Republicans were abusing the cloture rule and not allowing ANY federal court nominees to be voted on.
What McConnell did, was to use the power of the Senate Majority Leader to prevent ANY hearings on the single nomination Obama was supposed to make to the Supreme Court
Furthermore he didn't do it based on any ideological shortcomings of the nominee, since no nomination had even been made at that point.

 

he applied Harry Reid’s precedent to all nominees son.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/2017/04_06_2017_Senate_Floor.htm

Keep saying it’s different. I’ll enjoy the 6-3 majority.

 

There is no point in continuing the discussion since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

It’s on the senate’s website son


Point of order by Senator McConnell that the vote on cloture, under the precedent set on November 21, 2013, for all nominations is by majority vote in Senate.
-- Ruling of the Chair that the precedent of November 21, 2013 did not apply to nominations to the Supreme Court; those nominations are considered under plain language of Rule XXII; the point of order raised with respect to the majority vote for all nominations is not sustained.
-- Senator McConnell appealed the ruling of the chair.
-- Motion by Senator Schumer to adjourn until 5 p.m. not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 52. Record Vote Number: 108

hopefully Harry Reid read that as he was croaking

 

So once again, what McConnell did in regards to Garland has nothing to do with what Reid did by invoking the "nuclear option"

 

Not only trying, but in some cases succeeding, 100% yes.

Absolutley I am, and also patiently waiting for you to constructively oppose my position.

In the current. Trying to diminish the authority if the SC by putting them under the auspicious if the legislature, making rules for them like term limits, or moving to pack the court... all because they don't agree with the direction of the court.

Jesus. Where to start. The DOJ had historically low approval, specifically the FBI. People don't trust the Secret Service. Our entire election process is questionable. And it isn't just MAGA, all of these agencies, departments, and processes have a diminishing accountability among a large swath of the populace.

Hell, people trust the man in the white van with blacked out windows and puppies more than they trust congress.

Please link to the posts of your criticism of Democrat congressman and women who are taking from lobbyists, insider trading, or getting rich.

I'll wait.