Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: SCOTUS

#651

Post by Foggy »

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. :thumbsup:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#652

Post by Gregg »

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.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9857
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#653

Post by AndyinPA »

:thumbsup:
"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
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17656
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#654

Post by raison de arizona »

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
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

#655

Post by p0rtia »

Fucking brilliant.

Thanks!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Re: SCOTUS

#656

Post by much ado »

p0rtia wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:40 pm Fucking brilliant.

Thanks!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Exactly!
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17656
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#657

Post by raison de arizona »

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.
:snippity:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/
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
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: SCOTUS

#658

Post by noblepa »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:07 pm
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.
:snippity:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/
https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/han ... MS_xml.pdf
I have long thought that having justices serve a single 18 year, non-renewable term is a great idea.

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.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17656
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#659

Post by raison de arizona »

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
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#660

Post by bob »

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.
This is a variant of a law professor's brainchild. (I fergit which one.)

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.

* * *
raison de arizona wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:57 pm Make them declare the law unconstitutional and themselves judicial gods. Great PR.
One of the perks of being an unelected, untouchable cabal! :thumbsup:

More seriously: this'll die in the Senate; it is just election-year kabuki.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#661

Post by Gregg »

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.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: SCOTUS

#662

Post by RTH10260 »

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
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#663

Post by humblescribe »

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.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6693
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: SCOTUS

#664

Post by pipistrelle »

Why 18? Just curious.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#665

Post by bob »

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.
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).
I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.


Regardless, this proposal will never get to Biden's desk.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: SCOTUS

#666

Post by RTH10260 »

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
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS

#667

Post by sugar magnolia »

What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#668

Post by Kriselda Gray »

RTH10260 wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:55 am
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.


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...
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Re: SCOTUS

#669

Post by neonzx »

sugar magnolia wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
Hush, woman. A MAN was speaking.

Is breakfast ready yet. :waiting:
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#670

Post by Slim Cognito »

Alito can eat shit and die.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#671

Post by humblescribe »

bob wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:08 pm
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.
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).
I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.


Regardless, this proposal will never get to Biden's desk.
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.)
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#672

Post by bob »

sugar magnolia wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
The "religious liberty" of the majority to legislate their beliefs. :roll: The "religious liberty" not be compelled to be part of the abortion-industrial complex. :roll:

* * *
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.
The will of the voters. Or, more precisely, the will of enough voters in enough states to influence the majority leader.

In other words, nothing.

Another gem of "genius" from the Framers. :roll:

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.)
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.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#673

Post by Gregg »

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) :bag: 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?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#674

Post by Gregg »

oh, and sorry, but I am compelled to do this whenever I get too deep into this subject anymore...

Fuck Mitch McConnell
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#675

Post by bob »

Can a President make a Recess Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Yes; for example, Brennan initially was a recess appointment; he was appointed in 1956 but not confirmed until 1957.
If he did, what would be the term, just until the Senate reconvened, until the next Congress?
Recess appointments serve until the end of the congressional session.

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.
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?
Unconstitutional, as they weren't confirmed by the Senate for that office.

The executive branch does some hinky stuff with PAS positions, but that's the executive branch, and not the judiciary.
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”