LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SCOTUS Reform

MajorRewrite said:
An enforceable code of ethics is the “suggestion” of the framers of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
If it's already part of the Constitution, enforcement is all that is needed.

If you need more than enforcement of existing text, then you need additional laws or possibly amendments.

Again - people who want to hold SCOTUS "accountable" in any degree, truly need to take civics classes and learn the challenge they have ahead. The President's suggestions is more political theater than anything that has a path to success without substantial voter involvement (which we don't have)

And I don't fault him for using it to get more people out to vote, but when people don't have a basic understanding of our system of government, all it will result in is more apathy and cynicism that we've come to be used to. I'm not sure they've done a good job of thinking that through.
 
ll74 said:
If it's already part of the Constitution, enforcement is all that is needed.

If you need more than enforcement of existing text, then you need additional laws or possibly amendments.

Again - people who want to hold SCOTUS "accountable" in any degree, truly need to take civics classes and learn the challenge they have ahead. The President's suggestions is more political theater than anything that has a path to success without substantial voter involvement (which we don't have)

And I don't fault him for using it to get more people out to vote, but when people don't have a basic understanding of our system of government, all it will result in is more apathy and cynicism that we've come to be used to. I'm not sure they've done a good job of thinking that through.
Click to expand...

You pretend nobody but you knows anything about our government. Weird.
 
MajorRewrite said:
I used the word “suggestion” because you asked if it was my suggestion.

“Good behaviour” is in the constitution. You are free to pretend it isn’t, if you want.
Click to expand...
Is that the rules that SCOTUS follows? Or is it the recusal laws defined by Congress?

And what constitutes "good behavior"?
 
ll74 said:
Yes, clarifying reform suggestions by the administration is "whiny"

I have called this out as complete political theater since it was announced.

I would like to see more amendments passed, but it's not a possible thing in today's political environment. And I would support term limits for SCOTUS and Congress.
Click to expand...

LLCox said:
The argument for term limits disappears after the election not to return for almost four years. It's so sad I now laugh when it is brought up.
Click to expand...

ll74 said:
I think those pushing for reform should study up on what reform is possible and how it needs to be done legally, as I don't think they fully grasp the effort ahead of them - which is likely just going to fuel frustration in the system we have
Click to expand...

I cannot find it yet, since most the stories coming up are about President Biden's aims for SCOTUS reform rather than the mechanics, but i read (2 days ago, i think) an article informing of a new 10-year commission (not the one from 3 years ago which was more a scholarly arguing back and forth about possibilities) to develop structural changes and how to bring them, soundly, legally, into effect. It is not intended as a short-term solution but a thorough overhaul to move SCOTUS into the 21st Century with lasting benefits in order to regain the respect and integrity of SCOTUS.

looks like it's one of those really-quite-important-but-quiet things happening in the background of the far noisier, swiftly moving current news cycles. If I find it, I'll post the link.
 
It seems that MAGA Supreme Court Justices are (like a MAGA Ex-President) above the law.

Hey, can I be above the law as well?
 
^^^ That's exactly why Clarence and Sammy need to be tossed off.

Maybe the rest of them will get the hint.
 
I would think Presidential immunity would be important to "Joe Biden". After all, he murdered 10 innocent civilians in Kabul following his disastrous withdrawal that resulted in the deaths of 13 service members on his watch.
 
Sorry Charlie, you can’t rewrite history, the withdrawal was Trump’s deal.

Trump Strikes a Deal​

Feb. 29, 2020 — U.S. and Taliban sign an agreement that sets the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, but do not release two classified annexes that set the conditions for U.S. withdrawal. At the time of the agreement, the U.S. had about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan, according to a Department of Defense inspector general report.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops is contingent on the “Taliban’s action against al-Qaeda and other terrorists who could threaten us,” Trump says in a speech at the Conservative Political Active Conference. (U.S. withdrawals, however, occurred despite the fact that the Defense Department inspector general’s office repeatedly reported that the Taliban worked with al-Qaeda.)

The pact includes the release of 5,000 Taliban fighters who have been held prisoners by the Afghanistan government, which is not a party to the agreement.
Sept. 18, 2020 — At a press conference, Trump says, “We’re dealing very well with the Taliban. They’re very tough, they’re very smart, they’re very sharp. But, you know, it’s been 19 years, and even they are tired of fighting, in all fairness.”

Nov. 16, 2020 — Congressional Republicans, responding to news reports that the Trump administration will rapidly reduce forces in Afghanistan, warn of what Sen. Marco Rubio calls “a Saigon-type of situation” in Afghanistan. “A rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan now would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says. Afghanistan’s First Vice President Amrullah Saleh tells the BBC that the Trump administration made too many concessions to the Taliban. “I am telling [the United States] as a friend and as an ally that trusting the Taliban without putting in a verification mechanism is going to be a fatal mistake,” Saleh says, adding that Afghanistan leaders warned the U.S. that “violence will spike” as the 5,000 Taliban prisoners were released. “Violence has spiked,” he added.
Click to expand...

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/
 
Ramone45 said:
I would think Presidential immunity would be important to "Joe Biden". After all, he murdered 10 innocent civilians in Kabul following his disastrous withdrawal that resulted in the deaths of 13 service members on his watch.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that President Harry S. Truman authorized the dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, which was holding 200 American POWs and 200 Australians POWs!

Most of these POWs had been transported and housed there after the completion of the Bridge Over The River Kwai.

All the Aussies survived, they were in a separate camp outside of the main blast area.

The Americans were located extremely close to the blast area BUT were housed in one of the few reinforced concrete prisons (built "European Style") in Asia and virtually all of them were inside their concrete windowless cells at that time of day.

8 of 200 American prisoners were "out in the open" and all of them lost their lives instantly, 4 more succumbed soon after from radiation sickness. The prison was fortunately upwind from the radioactive debris cloud.

EDIT: Additionally, Hiroshima held 20 POWs, 12 of them Americans, in a wooden prison. All of them were killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Yet another win.
2
Replies
28
Views
362
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
R
Huge parental rights win.
18 19 20
Replies
493
Views
5K
eric_erosfan
eric_erosfan
Bodington
Federal Judges Whine That SCOTUS Is Overturning Their Rulings
2
Replies
42
Views
447
Rightguide
Rightguide
R
Round'em up,
10 11 12
Replies
283
Views
3K
Rotadom
Rotadom
R
Yay, we need more planes.
2
Replies
29
Views
371
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Back
Top