Biden Forming a Commision to Change the Supreme Court

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Your thread title is incredibly misleading.

"The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices."

Aside from what the Commission will be tasked to do, the composition of members is astounding with some of the most brilliant constitutional and legal scholars in the country, bipartisan, and after reading the list, including one of the federal judges that I worked with for a number of years here in the First District, will likely NOT focus on expansion but, rather, on how they choose to take cases and how bipartisan or partisan the Justices' choices are in their decision, which is more important than simply expanding the number of Justices sitting on the SC bench.

The listing of the Commission members with their outstanding histories is listed here, and they have impressive curriculum vitaes, of which this is just a brief of what's included in them:

 

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
928
Points
113
Location
California

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,673
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Your thread title is incredibly misleading.

"The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices."

Aside from what the Commission will be tasked to do, the composition of members is astounding with some of the most brilliant constitutional and legal scholars in the country, bipartisan, and after reading the list, including one of the federal judges that I worked with for a number of years here in the First District, will likely NOT focus on expansion but, rather, on how they choose to take cases and how bipartisan or partisan the Justices' choices are in their decision, which is more important than simply expanding the number of Justices sitting on the SC bench.

The listing of the Commission members with their outstanding histories is listed here, and they have impressive curriculum vitaes, of which this is just a brief of what's included in them:

Nope. The title and the part you highlighted are in complete harmony.

If you believe that this isn't the first step to usurping the court and controlling it you are mistaken.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Nope. The title and the part you highlighted are in complete harmony.

If you believe that this isn't the first step to usurping the court and controlling it you are mistaken.
Which begs the question why am I mistaken and not you?
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
The COTUS?

The concept of separation of powers?

An unabashed recent threat from the left and members of the legislative body to pack the court?
I am not going to get into a separation of powers debate with you when the prior administration literally spit on the other two co-equal branches of our government.
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,303
Reaction score
2,265
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
I am not going to get into a separation of powers debate with you when the prior administration literally spit on the other two co-equal branches of our government.
Please elaborate.

Then please explain why the previous administration's actions, which you seem to disagree with, justifies this administration's actions in your own eyes.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,673
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
I am not going to get into a separation of powers debate with you when the prior administration literally spit on the other two co-equal branches of our government.
The Democrats are trying desperately to meld the Supreme Court into the legislature for all intents and purposes. Would you like to discuss separation of powers?

Lesson #1: You do not legislate from the bench.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
The Democrats are trying desperately to meld the Supreme Court into the legislature for all intents and purposes. Would you like to discuss separation of powers?

Lesson #1: You do not legislate from the bench.
Lesson #1 actually is the Executive Branch is not an autocracy. Could have fooled Congress and the Judicial Branch the last four years.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmDqIvQD0s


Hmmm.... Not according to the guy you voted for at least twice.
How is that any different than what the last president did? Executive Orders are a norm, but at least providing health care for those in need did something FOR the American people.

That also has zero to do with laughing at Congressional subpoenas and eschewing Congress in doing their duly authorized duty in hearings and investigations, with the "president" believing he was more powerful than his co-equal branch of government.

But who cares about the foundation of the Constitution, right?
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,673
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
How is that any different than what the last president did? Executive Orders are a norm, but at least providing health care for those in need did something FOR the American people.

That also has zero to do with laughing at Congressional subpoenas and eschewing Congress in doing their duly authorized duty in hearings and investigations, with the "president" believing he was more powerful than his co-equal branch of government.

But who cares about the foundation of the Constitution, right?
The Constitution is THE single most important document in our county's history. It needs to be followed TO THE WORD as it was intended.

The video simply points out your selective memory.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
The Constitution is THE single most important document in our county's history. It needs to be followed TO THE WORD as it was intended.

The video simply points out your selective memory.
Apparently, your interpretation excludes the past four years.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,673
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Apparently, your interpretation excludes the past four years.
No.

You complained about executive over reach. I simply showed you the original.

That you supported fully.

You chose the restaurant.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
No.

You complained about executive over reach. I simply showed you the original.

That you supported fully.

You chose the restaurant.
Well, I'll stop here because you have difficulty grasping concepts, and I can't be bothered with your spin.

Let me be perfectly clear, though. Your inability to recognize the blurring of the lines and the autocratic rule of the last president is laughable and displays perfectly why I won't have a discussion with you about government overreach.

But since your style is to demand answers from everyone, do you dispute that the last president ignored the co-equal branch of Congress and its duly authorized powers to question and investigate executive actions AND the administration?
 
Top