Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.
“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.
Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.
Coulda done this in the first months in office, and actually made a difference, but I guess doing it for votes during an election is better than nothing?
Just like he let abortion rights be abolished so he could campaign on it.
He’s not running tho
Which is now why he’s doing it. No more fucks given
Also DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
As I understand it, Diplomatic Immunity still has limits but the new and improved Presidential Immunity has very little. Just need to prove official acts and you’re good to go.
God im so happy he’s bowing out, he’s not even going to do good shit while walking out the door. Sayanara milquetoast joe
Add 2 seats to the bench, and then add 13 total judges. 11 of 22 judges are selected at random to determine the case. The non voting judge opinion becomes part of the case law, as well as an intercollegiate constitutional scholar opinion
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there’s no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party’s favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It’s not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They’ll just wait their turn.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.
I think you’re missing the point.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there’s a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That’s an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you’re less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual’s brand of crazy when there’s only a ~1 in 3 chance they’ll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That’s a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn’t solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it’d help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you’ve gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren’t aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.
And even if you feel that isn’t worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you’re expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn’t too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.
The problem is that the process for amending the Constitution is heavily, structurally biased in favor of the Republicans now. The GOP would absolutely rally around this issue because it’s one of the primary things allowing them to hang on to power right now.
I don’t believe in engaging in theatrics with a zero percent chance of success when there are real, feasible steps that could be taken to make things better.
Honest question: Could all of the other stuff you’ve suggested happen without getting into amendment territory? I honestly don’t know almost anything about where all these SC things are defined in law, but changing the way the entire SC operates sounds pretty extreme when compared with simply adding term limits. It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t also stray into some constitutional territory.
Article III only lays out there there will be a supreme court and a Chief justice and makes Congress responsible for establishing them. It does not lay out the makeup or structure of that court. The current body of 9 justices is set by federal statute and could be changed by a simple act of Congress.
Article III also explicitly states that whatever Justices are appointed hold their office as long as they maintain good behavior (I e., as long as they haven’t been impeached) and that Congress cannot reduce their pay.
Term limits are explicitly unconstitutional.
Setting the number of judges is explicitly within Congress’ constitutional powers.
Randomized panels would probably be challenged just because it’s never been tested, but the language in the Constitution re: Congress establishing the Supreme Court is vague. That said, Congress has already established inferior Federal courts that operate in this manner, so there’s precedent.
If you triple instead of double that you could have a three judge panel (like federal districts do) that could rule on smaller cases that come out of that circuit. Then, if needed, they could call a full 9 - 11 judge panel if it’s a larger topic. This would also allow them to hear many more cases than they currently do, which has been a problem for decades.
I’d be in favor of more. 26 is just because I think there’s a very easy argument to make for “every circuit gets direct representation on SCOTUS” and it’s not a huge leap to go to two per circuit from there.
Increasing throughout is definitely one of the reasons I’d support doing this as well. Thanks for highlighting that since I didn’t.
I totally agree! Just saying you could make that exact same argument but for three per district and it opens up a bunch more possibilities.
Call for the moon to catch on fire, too, that would be fun.
Don’t get too excited. He knows he has no power.
Lock them up lock them up
Call for?
Can’t he executive order it?
Oh boy, he’ll call for it! Great! Thanks!
In his final months… Not now, but, you know, get ready for it. I guess.
Fuck is the point?
Hey guys cmon this is at least an upgrade from “president’s office planning to” lol
I was hoping for that.
He’s a lame duck now. That means he’s free to pursue policies that will add to his legacy, and without having to give even the tiniest shit about what the establishment and the donor class might think about it.
That’s not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren’t truly lame duck.
I agree in sentiment, but the lame duck doesn’t start until November 6th. And we need to stop normalizing otherwise because the republicans have already weaponized it.
Come on Biden. Go to fucking town. Let your legacy be crazy ass fights.
crazy ass-fights
You can tell the repubes were
A. Caught of guard by this and
B. Have no idea how to handle it.
I’m even wondering if the timing was intentional. Right after the RNC convention and they took all the momentum from Trump in one single announcement. Maybe they lined to the donors to pump up the donations right after the announcement to gain more momentum. If so, it was really genius.
If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?
So, to answer seriously: if it’s an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it’s an official act, he’s presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there’s no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they’re not allowed to use motivation to make the case.
The president isn’t given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He’s given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.So it’s a question arguing how “the president can’t kill members of the judiciary” doesn’t hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.
Biden is allowed to kill Supreme Court justices because he might need to Navy SEAL people for security reasons. Allowing litigation on Biden’s SEAL powers would irreparably restrict Biden’s agency as commander in chief and would literally cause a 9/11
I’m horrified to agree that that’s actually a valid argument.
Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, “designate as a clear and immediate threat”, specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.
Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.
Would it literally? Like hijacked foreign planes flying into buildings? Like invading countries for oil? Literally?
The argument that the Supreme Court made pretty boils down to “if you let the president go to trial for Navy SEALing a Supreme Court Justice, then the chilling effect of potential litigation would make the president too scared to kill Osama Bin Laden. Therefore the president has legal immunity when Navy SEALing Supreme Court justices”.
So yes, the Supreme Court actually believes that litigating a president could literally cause another 9/11.
Yes
I would chance it.
That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don’t tell you who. But I’m certain Biden isn’t on that list.
That’s correct
No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.
I think it’s traditional to say “Seal Team 6” rather than “assassins” at this point.
Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn’t matter to him.
Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.
No, because he’s not a Republican.
However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?
I think the remainder would be against it regardless.
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed.
Found it! Article 1, section 9, clause 3.
The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.
Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.
Kamala could pardon him. I don’t think very many of their voters would mind.
Worth it.
but nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy
- Joe Biden
Come on, Joe! Go out with a bang!
Joe bang!
He’d be dead before the sentencing anyway. Take one for the team Joe!
Plus, it can’t be that hard to defend him with some perfectly reasonable doubts. A jury wouldn’t convict him for doing the right thing.
Who’s gonna vote to say it wasn’t official afterwards?
6 or so SC justices?
Oh no, here I go, acting officially again.
A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.
If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.
From what I understand Cincinnatus gave up his dictatorship because he just liked to farm, and while he was an effective and generally good leader, he just liked to farm.
Who wouldn’t?
Out in the fresh air, soil in your hands, working the land to bring forth food.
Or
Court intrigue, back stabbing (literally sometimes), mountains of paperwork, assholes attacking your country at times. That shit would get old quick.
Don’t be so quick to rush into farming. I went from IT to farming and just spent 3 hours in the ER getting stitched back up, for about the 4th time in 5 years, and I’m probably ahead of most.
It ain’t a safe occupation. I should do something less hazardous like being a cop.
Or a school teacher.
I’m not brave enough for that.
But farming? Really? Man of your talents?
It’s a peaceful life.
Many great leaders want peace and quiet at some point. This resonates with me for sure.
Washington very definitely wanted to get back to Mount Vernon. Jefferson always said he wanted to stay at home, but that was at least partially performative.
Give it up for Jimmy Carter
But he has no power to do that, right? Congress would have to go along, and the Supreme Court is not gonna just do it themselves.
He can have the CIA assassinate them, and keep it top secret. The Judiciary is it’s own section and without a true act of congress or Constitutional Amendment nothing can change without the Supreme Court going in on it.
That Supreme Court case just set in stone what all Presidents have had for what they did in office. George W. never spent time in jail for war crimes, Reagan never went away for arming paramilitary groups, and Nixon didn’t go to jail for spying on the DNC.
The constitution does not block Biden’s scotus reform
Weird how those guys are all in the same party.
To be fair we could add Obama to the list too.
Yeah. Specifically, Mitch “too close to an election” McConnell would block the confirmation.
Or so I assume. I had to go see if he was still alive, because I hadn’t heard from him in a while. Seems he got booed at the RNC.
He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.
If I remember right, he called for Marijuana legalization and student loan forgiveness as well.
If I remember right, he called Kim Jong Un and professed his love and admiration of him. Oh, wait… that was Trump.
Not shitting on Biden in that comment, just pointing out that “Calling” for something doesn’t mean shit.
