SCOTUS
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 10970
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: Inventor of flag baseball
Re: SCOTUS
In the movie(s), Thanos was a huge criminal, but all the damage he did was subsequently completely undone and he died a total loser.
So there's that. I'm good with the storyline.
So there's that. I'm good with the storyline.
I'm Foggy and I forget if I approved this message.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
Okay, my humble submission to the committee trying to reform the Supreme Court.
Upon a Justice attaining the age of 70, the President shall appoint a new Justice to replace said Justice, thus expanding the Court. Upon the death or retirement of a Justice over 70, whose replacement has been such made, that seat shall expire contracting the number of Justces back to no less than 9.
So basically, you stick around after 70, the President gets to name your replacement anyhow. If you still stay, because the Constitution does say you can stay till you die, just know that the President will get to replace you anyhow. I'd even go so far as to try saying that replacement Justice doesn't even need Senate Confirmation until the first one dies or retires, as long as he is already Senate confirmed as an appeals court judge. I call that the "phuck you Mitch" clause.
Upon a Justice attaining the age of 70, the President shall appoint a new Justice to replace said Justice, thus expanding the Court. Upon the death or retirement of a Justice over 70, whose replacement has been such made, that seat shall expire contracting the number of Justces back to no less than 9.
So basically, you stick around after 70, the President gets to name your replacement anyhow. If you still stay, because the Constitution does say you can stay till you die, just know that the President will get to replace you anyhow. I'd even go so far as to try saying that replacement Justice doesn't even need Senate Confirmation until the first one dies or retires, as long as he is already Senate confirmed as an appeals court judge. I call that the "phuck you Mitch" clause.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: SCOTUS
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Re: SCOTUS
Warning, bad words. Although one can pretty much assume that when the topic is SCOTUS.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Re: SCOTUS
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices
A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”
The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.
If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.
Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.
https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/han ... MS_xml.pdf
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: SCOTUS
I have long thought that having justices serve a single 18 year, non-renewable term is a great idea.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:07 pmhttps://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices
A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”
The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.
If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.
Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.
https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/han ... MS_xml.pdf
However, I don't see how this can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.
US Constitution wrote: Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Re: SCOTUS
Make them declare the law unconstitutional and themselves judicial gods. Great PR.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Re: SCOTUS
This is a variant of a law professor's brainchild. (I fergit which one.)noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:51 pm However, I don't see how this can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.US Constitution wrote: Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The theory is "the office" stays the same, i.e., still a SCOTUS justice, with all the benefits. Just that the duties would differ: Regular SCOTUS justices would go to work (and destroy confidence in our institutions and society at large), while "senior" justices would go to special workplaces and have special duties, like cutting ribbons and handing out employee-of-the-month awards.
The concept is a zombie retirement, that is, the "office" isn't diminished because they're being paid to do nothing. I suspect, however, SCOTUS eventually would rule that part of the office entails its most critical function, i.e., deciding cases. That stripping them of the ability to vote is stripping them of their office, SCOTUS would conclude, and rule the law unconstitutional.
* * *
One of the perks of being an unelected, untouchable cabal!raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:57 pm Make them declare the law unconstitutional and themselves judicial gods. Great PR.
More seriously: this'll die in the Senate; it is just election-year kabuki.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
My idea is kind of like that and I think takes the doubt of if it's Constitutional (which let's face it, the current court will rule that is not)
Upon a Justice turning 70, the President can appoint a Justice to replace him, and that replacement is not required to be Senate confirmed as long as he is a current Senate confirmed Appeals Court judge, until the Justice they are replacing dies or retires. Takes the "Mitch McConnel says only Republicans can appoint Supreme Court Justices Rule" off the table. Let's the Court have predictable turnover and keeps 88 year old geezers who have been on the Court for nigh 40 years from outliving their usefulness.
Fifty votes plus one in the Senate, simple majority in the House.
Sweeten the deal by saying if you won't vote for this, fine, Expand the Court to 15 Justices permanently, double the number of Circuit and Appeals Court benches and phuck you Mitch McConnell, they'll be confirming Judges 6 at a time until the next election.
Upon a Justice turning 70, the President can appoint a Justice to replace him, and that replacement is not required to be Senate confirmed as long as he is a current Senate confirmed Appeals Court judge, until the Justice they are replacing dies or retires. Takes the "Mitch McConnel says only Republicans can appoint Supreme Court Justices Rule" off the table. Let's the Court have predictable turnover and keeps 88 year old geezers who have been on the Court for nigh 40 years from outliving their usefulness.
Fifty votes plus one in the Senate, simple majority in the House.
Sweeten the deal by saying if you won't vote for this, fine, Expand the Court to 15 Justices permanently, double the number of Circuit and Appeals Court benches and phuck you Mitch McConnell, they'll be confirming Judges 6 at a time until the next election.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16693
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: SCOTUS
Justice Thomas no longer listed as GWU faculty after Roe backlash
“Justice Thomas has informed me that he is unavailable to co-teach the seminar this fall,” Gregory Maggs wrote in an email.
By OLIVIA OLANDER
07/27/2022 01:56 PM EDT Updated: 07/27/2022 07:57 PM EDT
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is not listed as an instructor for any courses on the website for George Washington University’s law school, where he’s taught since 2011, a removal that follows the high court’s controversial decision undoing decades of precedent protecting a nationwide right to abortion access.
Thomas, among the five justices who voted to overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973, also authored a concurring opinion suggesting the court should also revisit other precedents, including those entitling Americans access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships. His role in the decision prompted a GWU student to launch a petition signed by 11,300 people calling for Thomas to be removed from his teaching post at the university.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/2 ... h-00048202
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Re: SCOTUS
Perhaps a simple approach would be to limit the Supreme Court terms to a fixed amount upon which the justice returns to an inferior court for as long as that person wants.
I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Re: SCOTUS
Retired SCOTUS justices can (and some do) sit in lower federal courts, but all of that is voluntary. A law compelling a SCOTUS justice to not sit on SCOTUS would almost certainly be found unconstitutional (by SCOTUS, natch).humblescribe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:59 pm I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
Regardless, this proposal will never get to Biden's desk.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16693
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: SCOTUS
US supreme court justice mocks Prince Harry and Boris Johnson’s criticism of Roe v Wade ruling
Samuel Alito, who authored the argument overturning the landmark case, dismisses complaints by foreign leaders at conference in Rome
Reuters
Fri 29 Jul 2022 04.33 BST
US supreme court justice Samuel Alito has mocked prominent figures around the world who have criticised last month’s ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision.
In his first public remarks since the decision, which has led to various conservative US states imposing abortion bans, Alito dismissed criticism of the ruling, which has come from the likes of British prime minister Boris Johnson, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau.
Alito, a conservative justice, also took aim at Prince Harry who referenced the abortion ruling in a speech at the United Nation’s last week.
Alito’s previously unannounced speech was delivered on 21 July at a conference on religious liberty in Rome hosted by the University of Notre Dame law school. Video of the speech was posted online on Thursday by Notre Dame.
“I had the honour this term of writing I think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Alito said.
“One of these was Boris Johnson, but he paid the price,” Alito joked, referring to Johnson’s plans to step down following criticism of his leadership from within Britain’s ruling Conservative party.
“But what really wounded me - what really wounded me - was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” Alito added in a sarcastic tone, referring to his ruling overturning the Roe decision that had legalised abortion nationwide in the United States and recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy.
Alito‘s references to the abortion ruling, which came during a speech about the importance of religious liberty, were met with laughter from the audience.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ade-ruling
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3830
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: SCOTUS
What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:55 amThomas, among the five justices who voted to overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973, also authored a concurring opinion suggesting the court should also revisit other precedents, including those entitling Americans access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships.
I find it interesting he didn't mention interracial marriage on his list of things to revisit, even though it was born out of the same line of reasoning as far as i can tell. I wonder why...
Re: SCOTUS
Hush, woman. A MAN was speaking.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
Is breakfast ready yet.
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7277
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
- Location: Too close to trump
- Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
- Verified: ✅
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Re: SCOTUS
While I don't argue with you, Bob, what compels the Senate to act on any potential SCOTUS nominee? One would think that the majority leader could hold all nominations in abeyance until the stars aligned just so. What if Clinton won in '16. McFossil could have sat on any nominee until he lost the leadership position or a Republican gained the White House. If the Senate were still in Republican hands and Clinton won a second term, we'd be down to six justices with the death of RBG and the retirement of Breyer (assuming he actually would have retired.)bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:08 pmRetired SCOTUS justices can (and some do) sit in lower federal courts, but all of that is voluntary. A law compelling a SCOTUS justice to not sit on SCOTUS would almost certainly be found unconstitutional (by SCOTUS, natch).humblescribe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:59 pm I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
Regardless, this proposal will never get to Biden's desk.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Re: SCOTUS
The "religious liberty" of the majority to legislate their beliefs. The "religious liberty" not be compelled to be part of the abortion-industrial complex.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
* * *
The will of the voters. Or, more precisely, the will of enough voters in enough states to influence the majority leader.humblescribe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:12 pmwhat compels the Senate to act on any potential SCOTUS nominee? One would think that the majority leader could hold all nominations in abeyance until the stars aligned just so.
In other words, nothing.
Another gem of "genius" from the Framers.
Speculative fiction already has been written about a not-so-distant future in which justices keep dying, and the president and the Senate can't agree on the replacement nominees, so more and more seats go vacant.If the Senate were still in Republican hands and Clinton won a second term, we'd be down to six justices with the death of RBG and the retirement of Breyer (assuming he actually would have retired.)
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
Can a President make a Recess Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice? I know the Senate doesn't always go on official recess anymore but if they did while a Majority Leader was refusing to give a nominee a hearing or a vote (don't laugh, it could happen) could the President appoint one? If he did, what would be the term, just until the Senate reconvened, until the next Congress?
And how about some feedback on my idea of the President being able to bypass Senate confirmation by appointing a sitting Judge who is already Senate confirmed, to a provisional seat on the Court when a sitting Justice reaches a certain age?
And how about some feedback on my idea of the President being able to bypass Senate confirmation by appointing a sitting Judge who is already Senate confirmed, to a provisional seat on the Court when a sitting Justice reaches a certain age?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
oh, and sorry, but I am compelled to do this whenever I get too deep into this subject anymore...
Fuck Mitch McConnell
Fuck Mitch McConnell
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: SCOTUS
Yes; for example, Brennan initially was a recess appointment; he was appointed in 1956 but not confirmed until 1957.Can a President make a Recess Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Recess appointments serve until the end of the congressional session.If he did, what would be the term, just until the Senate reconvened, until the next Congress?
But SCOTUS effectively killed recent appointments. I don't expect this session of Congress to go into recess just for appointments, especially considering this session ends in early January 2023.
Unconstitutional, as they weren't confirmed by the Senate for that office.And how about some feedback on my idea of the President being able to bypass Senate confirmation by appointing a sitting Judge who is already Senate confirmed, to a provisional seat on the Court when a sitting Justice reaches a certain age?
The executive branch does some hinky stuff with PAS positions, but that's the executive branch, and not the judiciary.