Having faltered and fallen in his own lane, Joe Biden seems to think his view of the Supreme Court might matter.
I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.
What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach....
I agree that what is happening now is not normal, but which way is it not normal?
Is it not abnormal for a person to serve as U.S. Senator for 36 years, then to go on to be Vice President for 8 years, and still have time left to serve as President, and even to run for reelection as President when he is 81, and then to drop the nomination after excluding competitors and winning it in the primaries, handing the nomination to a person who never won any votes in any bid for the presidency? Is it not abnormal for a President to oversee the criminal prosecution of his predecessor, his rival, and then, after dropping out, to seek to rearrange the Supreme Court to enhance the likelihood that his rival will suffer real criminal punishment?And what does "We now stand in a breach" mean? I think it's idiomatic to say "stand in the breach."
But let's consult the OED. A "breach" is "the product of breaking": "A physically broken or ruptured condition of anything; a broken, fractured, damaged, or injured spot, place, or part; an injury....esp. ‘A gap in a fortification made by a battery’.... Hence to stand in the breach (often figurative).
The earliest example of the figurative use is from "King Lear." It's Cordelia, bemoaning the diminished mental state of the King, her father, who gave up his power:
O, you kind gods,
Cure this great breach in his abusèd nature!
Th’ untuned and jarring senses, O, wind up,
Of this child-changèd father!
There's also Shakespeare's "Once more unto the breach," from Henry V. There's a break in the fortifications, and King Henry says:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood...
Now, I'm thinking of Trump's ear, how the blast of war blew in his ear and how (one might say) he imitated the action of the tiger... if a tiger does indeed pump a fist. (I tried to find a picture of a tiger pumping a fist.)
But what is the breach that Biden/Biden's ghostwriter perceives/purports to perceive? What is broken, fractured, damaged? The op-ed cites "dangerous and extreme decisions" and "a crisis of ethics" and "increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions."
To repair the "breach," he wants to amend the Constitution: 1. to abolish presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, 2. to impose an 18-year term limit on Supreme Court Justices, and 3. to impose a "binding code of conduct" on the Supreme Court Justices.
These are familiar proposals. Are we to discuss them anew because they are proposed by our greatly diminished President? There is no prospect of passing these amendments.
We are simply being assigned a topic by a very foolish fond old man/Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less....
And, to deal plainly,
I fear I am not in my perfect mind....
What place this is; and all the skill I have
Remembers not these garments; nor I know not
Where I did lodge last night. Do not laugh at me....
पोस्ट्स
१२१ टिप्पण्या:
"what is happening now is not normal"
But in a way it is. Dems will try any BS to gain power. While accusing GOPers of being weird.
Smarter years of trivializing and politicizing the senate confirmation process Ol’ Joe s going to fix everything? What embarrassing nonsense. The university of Delaware should be embarrassed that they let this guy have a law degree. And Delaware should be embarrassed they let this dim witted water baby exist in the senate for so long.
Separation of powers “uhhh distant state in Biden…”
Not being a racist in charge of judicial confirmation, licks ice cream cone in vapid.
Dignity and respect in office, wondering if that last fart was a little too wet.
Biden needs to put his suitcases in the attic like Silent Cal.
Obviously a political sop to the whiny left due to the nil chance of being enacted. Also a slap at Trump in an election year.
It’s abby normal to go after and prosecute your political opponents. It’s abby normal to have expectations that SCOTUS decisions will always go your way.
Joe Biden(D) and his family set up shell companies and used his VP status to enrich themselves personally with international pay to play money. Money from US tax payers that was washed clean thru Barisma (Where Hunter was on the Board of Directors) (why?) - and other such deals with China. etc...
Joe Biden is a crook and a liar- and he is the definition of a US President who is ABOVE THE LAW.
If a breach implies that something is broken, then who broke it if not him and his Party?
Not that it is any excuse
Biden's law school was Syracuse.
"And what does 'We now stand in a breach' mean?"
There used to be a wall of sanity protecting our republic, sound and impenetrable. It was the first line of security, the outer defenses that kept the gibbering heathens at bay. The Biden operators have knocked a gaping hole in the outer ramparts, and they stand in that breach with their mattocks and petards eyeing the inner wall, the final barrier against chaos.
The first men into a breached fortress wall were called a Forlorn Hope.
"I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today."
I'm not at all sure how that's a credential.
OK, Old-Timer.
This came from that great legal theorist michael avenatti
Ugh, so far don't let these new comments aesthetic.
If Joe Biden has basically overseen Supreme Court appointments and activities for more time than anyone else alive, then wouldn't it be his fault more than anyone else's for today's Court? I mean 12 of the last 16 years he sat in a Nominating position/executive role - wouldn't we say he has more responsibility than anyone?
Why is the Court's ruling wrong anyway? How would it apply to Biden and Obama, for that matter?
Oh, those pesky checks and balances! Who will rid me of this meddlesome separation of powers?
I have some sympathy for term limits.
Turley has discussed how Biden floated some of this when he ran for Pres in 2020, even set up some kind of investigation once he was elected. Eventually made it clear he had no intention of acting. Brought it up again to try to stay on the ticket. People won't take this shit from sane Biden, why from crazy Biden?
Back-to-the-future time-travel note to Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats: Nuking the judicial filibuster may have unintended consequences.
First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment.
Oh, the irony!
This guy is still talking?
I have some sympathy for term limits.
Turley has discussed how Biden floated some of this when he ran for Pres in 2020, even set up some kind of investigation once he was elected. Eventually made it clear he had no intention of acting. Brought it up again to try to stay on the ticket. People won't take this shit from sane Biden, why from crazy Biden?
Biden reminds me of Thad Eure, a state level politician back in North Carolina when I was a kid. He'd been sleazing around Raleigh so long that he was known as "The oldest rat in the barn".
The senile old bastard still hates Clarence Thomas, doesn’t he?
✅ Prosecuting political opponents
✅ Holding "elections" with only one candidate
✅ Throwing out the results of the election and let unseen Party Leadership do the pickin' for the voters.
✅ Creating conditions for your main opponent to be eliminated
✅ Packing the courts
BINGO!
Biden isn't talking - his Maduro-type control freak far left lackeys are in control.
The senile old racist still hates blacks, doesn’t he?
FIFY
"I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years...."
How about term limits for members of Congress?
If we're doing term limits....
This corrupt bastard has a lot of balls to call for "reform" of the Supreme Court.
Hells bells! He's taken millions in bribes!
FJB.
Joe Biden(D) and his family set up shell companies and used his VP status to enrich themselves personally with international pay to play money. Money from US tax payers that was washed clean thru Barisma (Where Hunter was on the Board of Directors) (why?) - and other such deals with China. etc...
Of course he’ll never face even the smallest consequences for this from the Merrick Garland Justice Department. And does anyone doubt that the apparatus of the so-called “ethics reform” proposed for the Supreme Court would be as fully captured by leftist political hacks as the Justice Department is currently, and used entirely for the persecution of conservative members of the court? Ruth Bader Ginsburg took perks from friends and political allies that dwarfed those received by Clarence Thomas, but that’s different because abortion….
i wonder who wrote this op ed?
i wonder if Biden knows who wrote it? We should ask her
" (I tried to find a picture of a tiger pumping a fist.)"
What child of the 60's doesn't know to "try Frosted Flakes - they're Ggrreeaatt !!!"
You want to talk term limits?
We do Congress first. Congress does far more damage to this country every year than the Supreme Court ever did. Laws are written, or not written in Congress. Direction of this country begins, or flounders in Congress.
People get wealthy in Congress while the middle class is gutted. And nothing ever changes.
Congress was NEVER meant to be a lifelong career. You want to talk about term limits, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer? Let's talk.
There is no chance of passing any reforms that require 60% Senate approval, let alone a constitutional amendment.
BUT ... This is a good way to turn people's focus towards Supreme Court related issues. Abortion, presidential immunity, general "problems" of having a court where 6 of 9 members were appointed by the same party. (Somehow much worse than the unavoidable 5 of 9.) Issues that Democrats want us to be thinking about.
I want SCOTUS to impose a binding code of conduct on Congress and the President.
1. No trading of individual stocks.
2. The President can't accept money for official acts. And same for his immediate family.
3. All Crypto accounts of Congressmen and the Executive Branch must be disclosed.
This is a fun game.
What other things should be included in these two new codes of conduct? Have at it Althouse community!
There is no greater threat to our personal liberties and constitutional rights than today's Democrat Party. Gun control, incarceration without bail. investigating the Catholic Church, discriminatory and selective prosecution, denigration of the First Amendment, etc.
I see Althouse beat me to it. After 50 years of inflicting himself on our government in various offices, Joe now wants to limit "lifetime" appointments at SCOTUS, but Democrats have strenuously fought against any term limits in Congress.
I'm against Joe's plan, because it reinforces the political appointment aspect instead of insulating Justices who might "grow" in office. (Yes I usually loathe that term.) But I'm agnostic on term limits for Congress because we implemented that in California and so these guys just jump from Assembly to Senate to Executive branch appointments and then land with lifetime appoints (or what seem like it) on various permanent "commissions" like the California Coastal Commission.
So rather than limit their damage by giving voters a choice, as it was sold, we now have permanent government parasites burrowed into structures untouchable by voters. That my friends is "our Democracy" in action when your state turns blue. That's why I've been reborn as a Florida Man.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."
--President (retired) Barack H. Obama
"Joe Biden seems to think his view of the Supreme Court might matter."
Biden has no "view" on the Supreme Court. He doesn't even know this was published in his name. Also, isn't it just peachy that the Al Capone of our political class is calling for a binding code of conduct on members of the judiciary? Talk about chutzpah.
Tell me something Joe -- would stealing elections and shaking down foreign countries for millions in bribes violate these proposed codes of conduct? Or is that just business as usual?
The SCOTUS "reforms" violate separation of powers. But his executive privilege ideas are just plain dangerous. Of course, Biden could set a great example by publicly rejecting any Executive Privilege for himself, reversing what he has done so far in that regard, and explicitly say he would gladly stand trial for any acts he took as president, official or not once his term ends in January.
That's what he wants to implement for Former Presidents now. He should set the example. Or, perhaps, he knows he won't live long enough to stand trial for what he's done, and therefore there's no danger to him personally in throwing this giant monkey wrench into the Article Two "vigorous executive" created by our Constitution.
What does Joe know and when did he know it?
Nice work, MadTownGuy:
Oh, those pesky checks and balances! Who will rid me of this meddlesome separation of powers?
They need the courts to backstop their crap (imagine for a moment if they had that backstop) so they will use Joe they same way they use the lawfare judges: they are old people at the end of their career/life and therefore are expendable, meaning free to commit career and legacy self-immolation for the sake of what can be, unburdened by accountability to voters.
Althouse : "How about term limits for members of Congress?
If we're doing term limits..."
The term limit argument for SCOTUS has merit regardless of your politics. BUT, if it's a good idea, then -- like Althouse says -- limits should be applied down the line : Congress, lower-court judges who now have lifetime appointments, and perhaps other appointees at the state and Federal level who have their positions until they croak.
I'd ask Belaire to examine first how "term limits" have actually worked when implemented. Maybe there's a way, but I'd need to see evidence it helps.
And what if the SCOTUS decides that whatever congress passes for ethics rules and term limits is unconstitutional?
On term limits for SC Justices:
1. There is nothing to prevent a leftist on death's doorstep from resigning early to let her (RBG!) seat be filled by another leftist when the President and Senate are obliging.
2. There is nothing to prevent a right-leaning Senate from denying consent to a leftist President's choice of a so-called "moderate" (Garland!).
3. Are the term limits to be applied retroactively? Is that how we do things now? Seems rather unconstitutional to change the rules after people have acted. And if so, doesn't that mean that some future president will get 3 appointments, since Trump did and so all three will come to the end of their terms in the same presidential cycle? If not, are we going to put in the Amendment which of the three Trump justices is forced to a shorter term or allowed a longer one?
Thank the Framers for the 2/3 in each house of Congress and 3/4 of the States requirements. Of course, "Biden's" proposal isn't really about remedying an actual problem, it is about getting the base of the Unrestricted Abortions Party excited.
How about 18-year employment caps for all employees of the executive branch?
There is nothing less serious than trying to push Constitutional amendments at the last minute.
I want SCOTUS to impose a binding code of conduct on Congress and the President.
Additionally, all assets become managed by a third party firm where no major transactions can be directed by the principle. Make sure that the political office cannot enrich the holder. Politicians should not be entering office as a way to enrich themselves. They get a salary and that is all they get. The same would go for immediate family.
Prove to us that you are a dedicated public servant, not just power hungry.
I know it is an election season so I shouldn't even pay notice, but, ah, don't they furiously spin!
The most corrupt politician of this century offers his advice on how to stop corruption. I guess you could "set a thief to catch a thief" but that mostly works in movies.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
The great Samuel Johnson observed that this makes no sense. He suggested that a line had dropped out and the passage should read something like this:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
(and force our way inside to take the town)
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
Where you corruptly derailed the nomination of Robert Bork, and in general worked to make America a worse place
What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the
Criminal justice system, because of the way the Democrats are corrupting and abusing it. Fixed it for you, Joe.
For almost 250 years, no President had ever used the power of the gov't to destroy his political opponents, other than Woodrow Wilson (see Eugene Debs, among others). Let alone try to bring back the worst abuses of the Late Roman Republic by going after a predecessor.
In a better world, every Democrat (and TDS addled Republican) who has particimaqpted in this corruption would be tossed in jail for the rest of their lives
250 years without a Supreme Court opinion on Presidential Immunity because for 250 years prosecutors exercised appropriate restraint. The fault, dear Biden, is in the Biden Dept of Justice.
G-Pub
The most corrupt politician of this century offers his advice on how to stop corruption.
From where I sit he's had no competition in that category since Lyndon Johnson. Maybe since Buchanan.
Lots of cognitive dissonance in believing one of our longest serving persons in our government, who had to be pushed to quit running for office, wants to implement term limits. If you believe that then you probably believe the other things he just told you.
What we need to do is limit the power of every branch of government so that it doesn't matter which corrupt jackass gets elected or how long a corrupt jackass is in government.
If Biden can pull off Supreme Court reform, this would absolutely secure his place as one of the most consequential American presidents.
Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is a great friend of Billionaire Paul Singer. The same Paul Singer which has cases in front of the US Supreme Court:
The same way, Judge Clarence Thomas has a financial benefactor — billionaire Harlan Crow.
Meanwhile his wife, Ginni Thomas, supported overturning the results of the last US Presidential Election.
Ginni Thomas sent a bizarre text to Donald Trump’s chief of staff, her old friend Mark Meadows. It read:
“Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days & will be living in barges off GITMO [Guantánamo Bay] to face military tribunals for sedition”.
One question might be whether or not the plutocracy is using their money as Supreme Court sanctioned free speech to overthrow a democracy supposedly based on free speech? The opening anecdote about Virginia Thomas raises disturbing questions. We now know who her husband works for. Who does she work for?
Michael K said...
The most corrupt politician of this century offers his advice on how to stop corruption. I guess you could "set a thief to catch a thief" but that mostly works in movies.
I think he is third. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were the first billion in bribes barons and I think they are both above the Bidens in sheer volume of corruption.
I think of the "7 ages of man" soliloquy in Shakespeare's As You Like It. The ending (of the 7th stage):
... Last stage of all,
That ends this strange, eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Our president is almost there, and almost six more months to go.
Or as that great pessimist Robinson Jeffers put it years ago: "Shine, perishing republic."
I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years - without one iota of evidence that I've seen that you had a stutter. A gift for putting your foot in your mouth on a regular basis, but you never stuttered while you chomped on your toes.
what is happening now is not normal - well, in the sense that your side succeeeded in railroading Bork, tried with both Thomas and then Kavanaugh, I suppose it kinda is normal for the left's attack on GOP nominations.
In what other way is the status quo not normal?
Ironically, the S Ct may be the only national institution left that is not corrupt.
Rich said...
Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is a great friend of Billionaire Paul Singer. The same Paul Singer which has cases in front of the US Supreme Court:
The problem for Rich is he is too stupid to actually discuss the positions that Alito takes.
So he attacks Alito's "friends."
Because just being a friend of this evil person Paul Sanger makes Alito an evil person according to people like Rich.
Therefor Rich can pretend he is something other than a 90 IQ piece of crap marxist who just wants to get his way with stupid guilt by association garbage attacks and doesn't mind of Alito or any of his other political opponents are killed.
I would only ask: Who really wrote that?
Althouse said...
How about term limits for members of Congress?
If we're doing term limits....
Quayle said...
How about 18-year employment caps for all employees of the executive branch?
IF we had a free press, Surely Some Reporter would ask the Administration about these 2 proposals?
Seriously..
WHY term limits for Judges and NOT Senators?
WHY term limits for Judges and NOT civil "servants" ??
IF we're going to the time and trouble of proposing an amendment; WHY NOT add these two?
IF we had a free press, WHY wouldn't a reporter ask about these?
Just kidding.. i KNOW the reason Why.. They'd be TERRIFIED IT WOULD THEN PASS
"Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
I'd ask Belaire to examine first how "term limits" have actually worked when implemented. Maybe there's a way, but I'd need to see evidence it helps"
Here in Michigan, the only term limits we have are on elected officials, and it's been a mixed bag IMO. Personally, I think in the case of elected officials it's better to defer to the voters every 2, 4, or whatever years and let them decide if it's worthwhile to keep the person around.
SCOTUS is a different issue, of course. Only a 100 people get to vote, and they get that vote just one time. So maybe having a change after xx years isn't a bad thing -- there will be winners and losers no doubt, but at least there'll be new blood injected into the mix.
Maybe having a justice reconfirmed after 10 or 15 years is a more workable idea as opposed to a hard term limit...
The op-ed cites "dangerous and extreme decisions"(shit we don't like) and "a crisis of ethics" (shit we made up) and "increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions." (shit that keeps our unelected bureaucrats from doing whatever they want
Rich said:
"Ginni Thomas sent a bizarre text to Donald Trump’s chief of staff, her old friend Mark Meadows. It read:
“Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days & will be living in barges off GITMO [Guantánamo Bay] to face military tribunals for sedition”.
*****************
Rich, can you offer a source for that? I call bullshit.
"If Biden can pull off Supreme Court reform, this would absolutely secure his place as one of the most consequential American presidents."
Rich has no concept of the separation of powers doctrine, but then nobody with a subnormal IQ is likely to grasp that fundamental principle.
What other things should be included in these two new codes of conduct? Have at it Althouse community!
-----
No armed security for politicians that have voted for any gun control law. No ICE vehicles for any politician that have voted for climate change taxes or EV mandates. No tax funded private jet travel for any politicians, government agency heads, or any federal government employee.
It is also not normal for the Secret Service to watch an armed gunman climb on a roof, set up a sniper nest, then fire off 8 shots at the opposition political party candidate for President, himself a former President of the United States. And then suffer virtually zero repercussions from having done so.
That is not normal. It's unprecedented in American history. And this shooting won't go unpunished.
Achilles, I think the Clintons got serious corruption going. Obviously, Hillary began it in Arkansas and carried on as if this was "back home." The White House travel office was the first of the new standard. Biden had his gift going for longer as "The Senator From MBNA."
Grift. Damn autocorrect.
Complaining about politicians trying to gain advantage by every means available is sour grapes. The Dems are in this pickle precisely because Obozo didn't recess appointment Merrick Garland and strong arm Ruth Bader Ginsburg into retirement.
Normal, of course, for the "Our DemocracyTM" people is for the SC to have a, at least, liberal majority (if not fully progressive). They consider jurists that want to follow the Constitution to be a problem.
Once again, LLR-democratical Rich plumbs the depths of the most inane and moronic leftist talking points now that the dems/LLR-dems/left are in political disarray. Anything to deflect from reality.
Li'l Rich even went Full Mutaman with the "Trump said to drink bleach" hoax....just yesterday!
Its been hilarious watching the descent in real time to gadfly-level stupidity and mendacity.
And to think Abacus Boy Rich held himself out as some sort of "deep thinker" on a range of topics!
LOL
"If Biden can pull off Supreme Court reform, this would absolutely secure his place as one of the most consequential American presidents."
Quaestor: "Rich has no concept of the separation of powers doctrine, but then nobody with a subnormal IQ is likely to grasp that fundamental principle."
It is astonishing what LLR-democratical Rich vomits up when left to his own devices.
I'm almost shocked to admit that the devolution in quality of the postings by the remaining members of the LLR-democratical Brigade (Rich and lonejustice with Chuck in abstentia) has reached gadfly level.
There's simply no avoiding this reality.
I would have thought the dems/left would allocate much more capable resources in attempting to disrupt such an influential and substantive blog as Althouse blog. But perhaps good leftist/dem/LLR-dem "help" is too hard to find these days.
We must NEVER forget that the democrats strive 24/7 for more political power. Everything they do is to gain more power, EVERYTHING.
Ssdd
Howard: "The Dems are in this pickle precisely because Obozo didn't recess appointment Merrick Garland and strong arm Ruth Bader Ginsburg into retirement."
There was no way to "strong arm" Ginsburg as her workouts alone were enough to destroy any soy boy dem/leftist that attempted to keep up with her....per the many, MANY "objective" reports from our legacy media at the time.
“Damn autocorrect.”
If you don't like autocorrect—disable it!
Standing in the breach is from Ezekiel and the Psalms
Well, Biden didn't write that- had he done so he would have told the story about his Uncle Lozzy storming Omaha Breach on D-Day.
"The Dems are in this pickle precisely because Obozo didn't recess appointment Merrick Garland and strong arm Ruth Bader Ginsburg into retirement."
Even if Obama could have recess appointed a SCOTUS justice legally, the Senate was always in session for precisely preventing Obama from making recess appointments to any position.
"Stand in a breach" only makes sense when there is more than one breach to stand in. Not sure what thing was actually being breached, though.
"I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today."
I'm not at all sure how that's a credential.
Not only that, he has had more say over who is on the SC than anyone, yet he doesn't like the outcome of his oversight. Doesn't say much for him as a senator, VP or President.
Are we saying that one branch of government has rule over another?
As far as term limits for other areas of government - something that I believe a lot of people are on board with - it is unnecessary. Firstly, it's not the federal government's job to determine who represents a State, or the people in that State; and we vote for our representatives/senators every 2/6 years.
If we didn't want them there, we wouldn't send them: leave it up to the States.
(Of course, if they want to vote on a constitutional amendment, go for it).
MadisonMan said...
"I would only ask: Who really wrote that?"
"The writer is president of the United States."
I believe!
Also -
"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one."
Hunter's going to need a fix after reading that.
I think that Biden wants to strip presidential immunity from his dear friend Obama for everything Obama has recently done for him. While Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son may approve of Biden’s proposal, I do not.
1. This isn't a Joe Biden initiative, he is too out of it to do anything much.
2. This is forcing a blivet on the public with the "responsible party" being a senile eldercare patient who keep others from facing or shouldering any blame for it.
3. Heck, they should be going for an abortion amendment under Joe. Maybe that's next week.
What kind of a hopped up jackass dumbfuck buttwipe of a president would actually open his swallowhole and propose a constitutional amendment to punish his enemies when he has 3 months left? What kind of internal dialog is going on inside his fetid cabbage brain? Something like a Bosch canvas narrated by ai.
Beiden must be alive, this shit is the original triple distilled 999.9 fine Beiden grade material. It’s the prime filet.
Drago said...
"I would have thought the dems/left would allocate much more capable resources in attempting to disrupt such an influential and substantive blog as Althouse blog."
Have you considered the possibility that the leftist commenters here *are* the most capable available?
Biden is acting like lucy from peanuts, holding the football for voters.
What kind of a hopped up jackass dumbfuck buttwipe of a president would actually open his swallowhole and propose a constitutional amendment to punish his enemies when he has 3 months left? What kind of internal dialog is going on inside his fetid cabbage brain?
It was not his idea, and from a tactical point of view for the flailing Democrat party, it's not a ridiculous idea either.
Ever since the 60's the crybaby Left has counted on the Supreme Court as a sort of supra-legislative body of last resort, where they can go to be awarded judgments like Roe v. Wade that would never pass a democratic vote by we the public or our elected representatives. The loss of this left wing Star Chamber over the past ten or fifteen years, and especially since the election of Trump, has driven them crazy. They will not get it back any time soon, and the notion of a constitutional amendment to pack the court is laughable in today's climate, but banging their pots and pans about what the new Court has done to the "right" to kill unborn babies will get a few women off the couch to vote, at the margins.
(Surely you are not at all surprised that their sham commitment to "Our Democracy" is just a desperate ploy of the Trump Years, and they are quite happy to shit all over Democracy and accept the rankest forms of tyrannical judicial fiat if that's what it takes to achieve leftwing goals.)
the Biden ghostwriter explicitly states that his "Trump is NOT Above The Law" thingie would be
(and NEED TO BE,) a Constitutional Amendment..
BUT!
the 18 years active duty for Judges.. he just says will be: "a system"
WHAT (and HOW?) will this "system" be? He doesn't say ANYTHING about this..
the "binding code of obedience" for judges.. He doesn't EVEN call that a system.
I'm assuming that the way it will be binding, is to take the offending conservative judge out back, and remind them; that they are ONLY judges.. FOR LIFE.
Is THAT what he means by binding? Termination (with Extreme Prejudice) of dis obedient judges?
I'm listening to Biden's speech and he is completely unintelligible.
Althouse
"Now, I'm thinking of Trump's ear, how the blast of war blew in his ear and how (one might say) he imitated the action of the tiger... if a tiger does indeed pump a fist. (I tried to find a picture of a tiger pumping a fist.)"
As a former law professor, you would think that Althouse's opinion as to whether or not the court needs reform, might be worth considering. Instead, she’s droning on about this nonsense.
She is without question the worlds all-time space cadet.
Mutaman, floating the idea of a Constitutional Amendment needed to achieve this "reform" shows the lame-o Biden regime has reached Stage 4 Political Dementia.
It's you who drones on about nonsense.
And perhaps the sun blazing from your ass has blinded you to the obvious: Prof. Althouse doesn't owe you a goddamn thing, let alone her opinions on "judicial reform."
effinayright said...
Mutaman, floating the idea of a Constitutional Amendment needed to achieve this "reform" shows the lame-o Biden regime has reached Stage 4 Political Dementia.
You're a little confused buddy. The Constitutional Amendment has to do with the issue of immunity, has nothing to do with court reform.
According to my research, 52 former Supreme Court Justices served for more than 18 years. They include the most consequential: Chief Justice John Marshall, who served for 34 1/2 years. They also include William O. Douglas (36 Years), Hugo Black (34 years), "Wizzer" White (31 years), Oliver Wendell Holmes (29 years), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (27 years), Sandra Day O'Conner (24 years, Harry Blackmun (24 years), Thurgood Marshall (23 years), Felix Frankfurter (23 years), Louis Brandeis (22 years), among others.
Michael K at 11:49
I think "gift" actually works well.
Mutaman said...
effinayright said...
Mutaman, floating the idea of a Constitutional Amendment needed to achieve this "reform" shows the lame-o Biden regime has reached Stage 4 Political Dementia.
You're a little confused buddy. The Constitutional Amendment has to do with the issue of immunity, has nothing to do with court reform.
***************
Insufferable DUNCE!!! Intellectual VOID! Perpetual woke-ass SUCKING WOUND!!!
Congress has no power to do change by Legislation a claimed oversight power of the SUPREMES. and neither does the Executive.
A Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY WAY to achieve these changes. Under NO current or future view of the American policial scene would such a change pass.
You obviously know DICK about our Founding Documentor how changes to it are made.
And yet here you are, mocking a retired Con Law prof, whose Doc Maartens you are unworthy to loose.
Why is a president repeatedly threatening the Supreme Court, and repeatedly and openly proposing to unilaterally and without Constitutional authority undermine the system and tradition upon which our country has operated with respect to the Judicial Branch, any less "insurrectionist" or "illegal" than anything that Trump is alleged to have done with respect to the election of 2020?
Mason G: "Have you considered the possibility that the leftist commenters here *are* the most capable available?"
I fear you are correct...and by "fear" I mean that Rich and gadfly and lonejustice and Mutaman and Left Bank et al may be at the very top of the Leftist "cream" which means our Republic, already likely at the point of being on its last legs, will be just a waypoint on the path to Full Left/Dem/Dem-LLR driven Idiocracy.
Althouse:"How about term limits for members of Congress?" Or, maximum age limits for Presidency? And while we're at it, political literacy tests for voters. If Joe's handlers can dream, why not the rest of us? God, can you imagine what a Constitutional Convention in our Distracted States of America would be like? The "union" of two trains speeding at each other.
Term limits for Congress do no good as they put all legislation in the hands of staff. The McCain Finegold law already did most of that we have not had a functional Congress since Obama.
Drago said...
"which means our Republic, already likely at the point of being on its last legs, will be just a waypoint on the path to Full Left/Dem/Dem-LLR driven Idiocracy."
It looks that way at times. The left won't be driving, though- more like pulled by their noserings out of their parent's basements by their "leaders".
"Term limits for Congress do no good as they put all legislation in the hands of staff."
Lobbyists write the legislation, congressional staff and congresscritters might massage it a bit. Even NPR recognizes that reality...
When Lobbyists Literally Write The Bill
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill
effinayright said...
"And yet here you are, mocking a retired Con Law prof, whose Doc Maartens you are unworthy to loose."
Fortunately I'm of the age where I was taught my Con law by Abner Brodie before Althouse came along. But if you want to read some mocking, google "Althouse" and "wine box"
Mocking a retired Law prof----The Horror!
Mutaman: "Fortunately I'm of the age where I was taught my Con law by Abner Brodie before Althouse came along."
Looks like there wasn't much of Prof Brodie's teaching that was absorbed in your case.
I wonder what Prof Brodie's assessment of your continued pushing of debunked hoaxes might look like as well.
Howard said...
Complaining about politicians trying to gain advantage by every means available is sour grapes. The Dems are in this pickle precisely because Obozo didn't recess appointment Merrick Garland and strong arm Ruth Bader Ginsburg into retirement.
Obozo lost 9-0 in SCOTUS on teh matter of recess appointments, well before Scalia died.
So, you're saying he should have strong armed RBG into retiring in 2014? Over 6 years before she actually died?
Because it wouldn't have done any good to strong-arm her after the GOP took teh Senate in the 2014 elections.
Was this whine ignorance, stupidity, or just your usual dishonesty?
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the President of the United States cannot use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution to appoint public officials unless the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business.
...
Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer, writing for the Court, stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."
...
Justice Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. While it agreed with the conclusion the Court reached, the concurrence chastises the majority opinion for ensuring "that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the President's arsenal. ... That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism." Scalia argues that the recess appointment power only applies to vacancies that arise while the Senate is in recess.
Mutaman said...
effinayright said...
"And yet here you are, mocking a retired Con Law prof, whose Doc Maartens you are unworthy to loose."
"Fortunately I'm of the age where I was taught my Con law by Abner Brodie before Althouse came along."
>>>>Oh really? Abner Brodie would know that Congress and the Executive cannot unilaterally impose "reforms" on the Supremes.
>>>>But you, his student, do not know this.
>>>>Brodieretired in 1993. Time traveling Althouse began teaching Con Law in at U Wisc in 1984.
But if you want to read some mocking, google "Althouse" and "wine box"
>>>>I did. Nothing came up. Whachoosmokin'?
************************
OK, OK, I get it: that was a loong time agao, and meantime you've'forgotten more than you ever learned."
Exactly.
DERP
Term limits...
20 years (pick a number) TOTAL limit on government service of any kind, elected, appointed, civil, military.
Otherwise You just get more State.
effinayright said...
"Congress and the Executive cannot unilaterally impose "reforms" on the Supremes."
The little fellow has now posted this several times without setting forth a link supporting the statement.
Simple. Any moneys over and above their salary is to be taxed at 75%
Because everything else has failed. I don't think they're done shooting at Trump.
Again Dunning-Kruer writ large. You have yet to prove you're intelligent.
Mutaman said...
effinayright said...
"Congress and the Executive cannot unilaterally impose "reforms" on the Supremes."
The little fellow has now posted this several times without setting forth a link supporting the statement.
I'm sorry that you're an ignoramus who doesn't understand the concept of "separation of powers".
Congress can create a potential Constitutional Amendment imposing term limits on SCOTUS. But then you need to get 34 IIRC States to pass it.
Which isn't going to happen any time there's a Dem President
Greg the Class Traitor said...
" Congress can create a potential Constitutional Amendment imposing term limits on SCOTUS. But then you need to get 34 IIRC States to pass it."
I'm talking about ethics reform and preventing Thomas from accepting bribes from rich people. Congress has the power to pass such reforms - see Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
" In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
" In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Now get the Supreme Court to go along with that. Marbury v Madison, etc. We are talking Separation of Powers here. The Supreme Court saved Congress from term limits, and this is how they reciprocate.
Mutaman said...
Greg the Class Traitor said...
" Congress can create a potential Constitutional Amendment imposing term limits on SCOTUS. But then you need to get 34 IIRC States to pass it."
I'm talking about ethics reform and preventing Thomas from accepting bribes from rich people
How about preventing Sotomayor from accepting bribes from rich people?
I'll know the Left is serious about ethics when they pass an ethics law that prevents ANYONE who's received a paycheck from eh go0v't in the last 10 years from receiving a "book advance".
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court in 2017 and also has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals with the publisher, declined to disqualify himself from the more recent case when it came before the court for consideration.
Note: she did not get "millions of dollars in earned royalties", she got it in non-refundable "advances" that were nothing more than political payoffs for being on the Left.
You want to play that game? We'll play that game. But your side is far more corrupt, so you will lose
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा