Biden proposes sweeping changes to the Supreme Court

They can be impeached by the legislative branch.

Seriously? The SC was created by an act of congress, and was only later written into the constitution in 1789.

“In good behavior” was left in so they could be impeached by congress….

 

They can be impeached. Its in article III of the consitution: “holding offices during good behaviour”, That allows them to be impeached by congress. Only one judge has been impeached and removed, and that was in 1805. So its there.

 

No it doesn't ?

It says “in good behavior”…..thats all. It Doesn’t say “until bad behaviour”

 

Some judges do. But we know for a FACT that Thomas got money from Harlan Crow. They both admitted it. We also know he got an RV from him.

Now with that being said, why did Thomas not disclose that ? Or that Crow bought Thomas’ mom a house ?

You seriously dont think that Crow just spent millions on Thomas de cause he could ? Rich people didn't get rich giving things away…

 

Yeah? So? That same court that they established also nullified part of the act which established them also as being unconstitutional.

 

Can you prove that any of those things affected how he ruled? And I do mean prove it. Not just insinuate it.

 

So now the court gets the decide the courts ethics ? BS……

They can be impeached, so their congress does have the power

 

We dont need to. You cannot think this is ethical to receive gifts from people who benefit from decisions the court makes.

You seriously cant think that thats ethical, let alone legal….

 

I like two of the ideas but dislike on of the proposals. Realistically, none will pass by the end of his presidency. however, Biden made these proposals for the future and trying to reestablish the independence of the Supreme Court. I don't agree with term limits, although that is a popular idea among a majority of voters. An enforceable code of ethics is particularly interesting but who should do the enforcement? Other judges, a new court, the DOJ, or Congress. that's the problem because if it is the executive branch via the DOJ or Congress, then it may violate the separation of powers within the Constitution. Article III did allow Congress to establish lower courts through Article 1, but that is as far it will go. The term limits will have to be a constituitional amendment, and that is not going to pass anytime soon.

The enforceable ethics could pass if Congress stops trying to use party instead of country for once in this lifetime, but it may be challenged, and that very same Supreme Court may strike it down to preserve its own interests. And it could put pressure on Chief Justice Roberts to come up with his own ethics rules and enforcement within the Supreme Court. But this is fraught with political landmines all over the place. So, it probably won't happen, even if the DP has control of both houses in the Legislature.

 

Yep, through the impeachment process. A process that belongs to Congress solely.

 

Don't need to? Yeah.....I'm glad you are not a judge.

 

We can use the American Bar Association code of ethics, or we can use the DOJ Code of Ethics which all lower federal court judges have to abide by. That would be a start. How it is enforced is the problem. Options are a panel of toehr judges, the DOJ, or congress though the impeachment process.

 

1. There is a difference between a SCOTUS vacancy and a POTUS vacancy. SCOTUS is nine people and it can run for a few months with one less member. POTUS is one person that needs to be replaced as soon as possible
2. What Biden was saying in 1992 (if you bothered to read everything he had to say) was that in the hypothetical case where a SCOTUS seat becomes vacant that the president should hold off on nominating a replacement DURING THE CAMPAIGN and once the election was over, the president has plenty of time to nominate someone and for the Senate to hold hearings and vote before either of them has to give way to newly elected replacements. The reason? Biden's words son: “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

In other words to hold a nomination hearing IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN would result in less debate about the fitness of the nominee and more speeches about the upcoming election. Once the election is over and the grandstanding would have no purpose, the true nomination and hearing process can begin. Please note that he wasn't saying it was going to be only Republicans who would engage in grandstanding, he felt BOTH PARTIES would do it.

3. What McConnell did after the death of Scalia was try to twist what Biden said into meaning that no nominee should be considered until the new President and New Congress were seated. THAT WAS A LIE

4. Even if McConnell in senile brain (he is OLD after all, you know, like Trump) thought that was what Biden meant and thus denied Obama his chance to pick a nominee, he completely reversed himself when RBG died and not only did he not think that we needed to wait for the new President to be seated, he RUSHED through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Scalia died in February and McConnell denied any hearing on a replacement (without even knowing who the replacement was going to be) for almost an entire year....yet four years later, when RBG died, RUSHED a confirmation in less than 100 days. BOTH DURING AN ELECTION YEAR. Hypocrisy on a scale that boggles the mind.

 

Ok, they can be impeached. Then why the need for a code of ethics?

 

Right here, this is the reason.

 

If Hillary had won in 2016 this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

Why? Does it bother you when I comment. I don't support/vote for either candidate not being American. I look and comment on things from the outside while most of you are partisan players in the ugly comedy playing in the USA theatre.

 

Who's going to enforce the ethics rules?

 

Them don't get your panties in a twist about my comments.

 

lol, Black African American, Conservative Republican, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I love him, I follow him on Twitter X.

There was a black Pastor that called Black Conservative Republicans, Trump supporters, mentally ill People. Shame on him.

 

hmm, DOJ and Congress you say; both of questionable ethics

 

Thanks for admitting what I said was true…

 

WTF does that even mean?

Are you going to respond to what I said ?

 

Because impeachment is a huge process.

The basics of a code of ethics is something we need to start the impeachment process.

Look, this isnt about their politics, its about the core principal for our democracy which is one of the 3 branches of government is taking money from citizens, and one side of the isle thinks that that is perfectly fine. The judiciary cannot just get a free ride with no level of accountability. Thomas is literally throwing it in our faces that he is taking money and gifts, and he does it becasue nobody is willing to do anything about it….well at least on the right they arent.

Why cant they have the same rules as congress ? Oh wait, they’re corrupted to…….

 

Who's going to enforce the code of ethics?