Supreme Court, Corrections?

[JackLuis]

Now with ACB on the court, outrage fills the land. But how to correct the court which has gotten out of control?

Here’s the case for impeaching Clarence Thomas — the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice

Enlarging the Supreme Court is entirely within the power of Congress, as the number of justices is not set by the Constitution. The court’s composition has, in fact, varied over time, ranging from six justices when the Constitution was ratified to 10 in 1863. The panel was reduced to nine by an act of Congress in 1867 and has remained there since then by statute.

While Democrats should definitely demand court expansion if they retake the White House and the Senate and hold the House, there is at least one additional step they should take to address the court’s legitimacy crisis—the impeachment of its most corrupt member—Clarence Thomas.

Thomas should be impeached on charges of perjury for allegedly lying in his annual financial disclosure statements for over a decade and, more fundamentally, for lying in his 1991 confirmation hearing about his disgusting history of sexual harassment.

It's worth a shot.

 

[JackLuis]

Brett Kavanaugh caught lying in SCOTUS opinion against voting access during the pandemic: report

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Monday voted that 2020 elections ballots in Wisconsin can only be counted if received by Election Day.

Kavanaugh issued his own concurring opinion, where he suggested that state courts should be barred from protecting voting rights.

Kavanaugh also made a mistake of fact.

Beer Keg Brett didn't so much as lie, he was just being Rethuglicuntish and not checking his work. He'll probably blame it on his clerks who didn't correct his stupidity!

Another impeachment in progress.

But wait, there's more.

Why a new opinion from Brett Kavanaugh is disturbing to so many readers

A more in depth discussion in that one.

One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights: analysis

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Now with ACB on the court, outrage fills the land. But how to correct the court which has gotten out of control?

Here’s the case for impeaching Clarence Thomas — the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice



It's worth a shot.

After Biden takes office he should relentlessly attack the conservative justices on twitter until they resign

(sarcasm)

 

[Wrong Element]

Brett Kavanaugh caught lying in SCOTUS opinion against voting access during the pandemic: report

That's the sort of thing that can happen when you begin by deciding how you want the case to come out politically, and then have to try to find some justification for it in the law.

It's incredible that Kavanaugh can say with a straight face that legally cast ballots being counted after Election Day would lead to doubt about the real winner, but throwing out those ballots would not. (I'd also point out that the counting of late-arriving overseas ballots, many of which were clearly cast after Election Day, was a huge priority for the Bush team in the Florida controversy of 2000, which Kavanaugh worked on. But those ballots benefitted a Republican, so that was very different.)

 

[jaF0]

Any of them that voted to discriminate against disabled voters in Alabama should be subject to Impeachment.

 

[FGB]

OH! PLEASE DO!

Piss of the SCOTUS and when comes down to personal opinions on your case or cause...


Well...Ya Know!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Expanding the court to make it more representative of the sentiments of the majority makes more sense to me.

 

[jaF0]

It has to have a logical reason however. One exists in the notion of one Justice per Circuit, which is 13.

 

[jaF0]

But I'll say again, Judges and Justices need to be able to be held accountable for bad acts and rulings. Subverting the Voting Rights Acts and the ADA is something that needs to be challenged.

 

[nowisthetime]

Reforms should definitely be a priority with this court.

And for all you white men who "ain't ballin" like that, who thinks this only affects women and "minorities", watch out, it affects you all, too.

Same sex marriage, healthcare pre-existing conditions, reproductive rights, union protections are all up for grabs...during a pandemic and recession.

What these disgusting pieces of human trash forget is you can't unring a bell once you give people rights. Not without a pushback. They're dumbasses (rightwing extremist are disgusting) tried to get rid of alcohol and they saw how that turned out.
You can't fuck with people like this.

 

[Publius1990]

Expanding the court to make it more representative of the sentiments of the majority makes more sense to me.

Sure, that would make sense to you. The problem is courts are not intended to be representative. That’s what legislatures are for. Courts interpret the law made by legislatures. They have no role in representation. If you want the court to be representative then what you are really saying is that they should be elected. But then they would be indistinguishable from the legislature. So what you are really saying if you don’t understand our system of government or political theory.

Furthermore, when the court has wandered horribly from what it should do, correctly interpret the law in a nonpartisan fashion, it has returned some very bad decisions. When Plessy was decided the “sentiments of the majority” was that separate but equal was fine. So you had perpetuation of Jim Crow. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

 

[FGB]

Expanding the court to make it more representative of the sentiments of the majority makes more sense to me.

THAT is NOT what the SCOTUS is or is for.

You are wanting Social justice which changes month to month and year to year, and has NO place in Government.

I think you expect her to come down on the side of Conservatives or Republicans in all issues.

That is not how it works, as history has proven.

It is the LEGAL aspects of a case that is settled there...at least that is the way it was laid out by our forefathers.
Any thing else and you have a mess like ROE VS Wade! Which by the way should be rewritten. I have already expressed what I thought would be the final result which will make neither side happy but will be workable and legal.

 

[Lespayne]

How has the Court gone out of control?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Sure, that would make sense to you. The problem is courts are not intended to be representative. That’s what legislatures are for. Courts interpret the law made by legislatures. They have no role in representation. If you want the court to be representative then what you are really saying is that they should be elected. But then they would be indistinguishable from the legislature. So what you are really saying if you don’t understand our system of government or political theory.

Furthermore, when the court has wandered horribly from what it should do, correctly interpret the law in a nonpartisan fashion, it has returned some very bad decisions. When Plessy was decided the “sentiments of the majority” was that separate but equal was fine. So you had perpetuation of Jim Crow. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

The sentiments of the majority are that we have a SCOTUS that interprets the law without passion or prejudice.

Instead we have three new justices that were literally hand selected to overturn Roe, among other things, because the minority cannot do it legislatively. Prior courts set the correct precedent that a woman has a constitutional right to determine what she does with her own body. The Handmaiden Amy Coney Barrett being the most obvious example imaginable of injecting judicial activism into the SCOTUS.

The only way to restore the SCOTUS to its purpose is to add justices to the court that dilute the unqualified and openly prejudiced recent appointees.

What I am really saying is I understand our system of government and political theory and can identify when it has been subverted and when it needs to be set right.

 

[FGB]

The sentiments of the majority are that we have a SCOTUS that interprets the law without passion or prejudice.

Instead we have three new justices that were literally hand selected to overturn Roe, among other things, because the minority cannot do it legislatively. Prior courts set the correct precedent that a woman has a constitutional right to determine what she does with her own body. The Handmaiden Amy Coney Barrett being the most obvious example imaginable of injecting judicial activism into the SCOTUS.

The only way to restore the SCOTUS to its purpose is to add justices to the court that dilute the unqualified and openly prejudiced recent appointees.

What I am really saying is I understand our system of government and political theory and can identify when it has been subverted and when it needs to be set right.

As long as it slants liberal or left wing...

I see.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Trump in 2016 promised to overturn Roe v. Wade in a presidential debate.

"That will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court," Trump said.

Is this Trump advocating for Judicial Activism and clearly saying that he will nominate justices to legislate from the bench?

 

[Lespayne]

The sentiments of the majority are that we have a SCOTUS that interprets the law without passion or prejudice.

Instead we have three new justices that were literally hand selected to overturn Roe, among other things, because the minority cannot do it legislatively. Prior courts set the correct precedent that a woman has a constitutional right to determine what she does with her own body. The Handmaiden Amy Coney Barrett being the most obvious example imaginable of injecting judicial activism into the SCOTUS.

The only way to restore the SCOTUS to its purpose is to add justices to the court that dilute the unqualified and openly prejudiced recent appointees.

What I am really saying is I understand our system of government and political theory and can identify when it has been subverted and when it needs to be set right.

a Democrat will foot select?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

As long as it slants liberal or left wing...

I see.

That is your game, clearly. Because the invisible Santa Claus in the sky tells you how to think. I am saying the opposite. But I do understand why people who need to believe in ghosts and crave authoritarian rule want a big government to tell them and others what to do and how to live.

I don't.

 

[jaF0]

You do understand that the SCOTUS only interprets and upholds the law that is written by your elected representatives?

That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. That is not what they do in reality though. They ARE tilted, even though they're not supposed to be.

They proved that recently with Alabama.

 

[jaF0]

Also, a standing, mandatory recusal. Justices may not rule on cases involving the POTUS that nominated them.

 

[Wrong Element]

Trump in 2016 promised to overturn Roe v. Wade in a presidential debate.

"That will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court," Trump said.

Is this Trump advocating for Judicial Activism and clearly saying that he will nominate justices to legislate from the bench?

Conservative complaints about "judicial activism" have certainly waned as they've taken control of the federal courts. Funny how that works.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Conservative complaints about "judicial activism" have certainly waned as they've taken control of the federal courts. Funny how that works.

I notice that the RWCJ legal scholars stopped responding

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK we also have a Supreme Court.

Most of us don't know or care who the justices are. They are impartial and appointed for their known impartiality. They rarely attract attention by their decisions except on Brexit when they ruled that only Parliament could change the Act that took the UK into the EU.

But that decision was made on precedent, not political bias. We don't know what the political opinions of the justices are, and they would be angry if they felt that their decisions were affected by political views.

Appointing a replacement justice is a formality and both left and right are usually happy with whoever is suggested.

 

[icanhelp1]

Expanding the court to make it more representative of the sentiments of the majority makes more sense to me.

Apparently you don't have a clue of what the function of the courts is.
Congress is responsible for sentiment, the courts determine the constitutionality of legislation. Courts should be independent and neutral except if your a progressive socialist and you need your agenda passed at all cost and fuck the constitution.

 

[JackLuis]

"Corporation are people, my friend," is grounds for impeachment! The idea that an artificial identity is a "person" is stupid, unless the Whole Board of Directors is liable for the crimes of the Corporation.