President Biden is set to announce major Supreme Court reforms on Monday, likely including term limits and an enforceable ethics code. He’s also expected to advocate for a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity.
Let’s parse this. Term limits are unconstitutional. Read Art. III, Sec. 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.
Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment, not an executive order. Biden can’t legally do shit about term limits.
An ethics code: Biden can’t do that by executive order, either. At the least, it would require an act of Congress, and even then, the court is likely to rule that such an act would be unconstitutional.
Which brings us to the final point- limiting officeholder immunity through Constitutional amendment.
Passing an Amendment is extremely difficult, and it’s meant to be. There is no way that they are going to get the two thirds vote of both houses of Congress, nor are they likely to get the approval of 38 state legislatures. I just don’t see this happening without the left finally admitting that they use COTUS as toilet paper.
They are simply pissed because the court is not ruling in their favor. They will stop at nothing to destroy Trump, and once they do, you are next.
18 Comments
Don Curton · July 27, 2024 at 9:52 am
I’d wager 99% of D voters don’t know that and won’t care and will support it regardless, and a good 75% of R voters don’t know that either but will get upset right on cue. As for me, I’d like to see term limits on Congress first, followed by a full financial audit and public report for every single public figure for their time in office.
TRX · July 27, 2024 at 4:20 pm
I’m not entirely happy with the idea of Congressional term limits. Yes, they get paid out of Federal money, but they’re elected by the states they represent.
If some state chooses to elect the same guy a dozen times, that’s purely the business of the state and its citizens, not that of Congress. Term limits disenfranchise the citizens of the state by limiting who they’re allowed to vote for.
Birdog357 · July 28, 2024 at 2:21 pm
Considering that the other states reps create laws that affect me, I should be able to tell them to stop sending that dumbass that’s harming me back to congress…
Divemedic · July 28, 2024 at 3:07 pm
It was intended for people to elect the House, while state legislatures elected the Senate. That’s why Senators have a longer term.
I think that passing the 17th Amendment was a grave error, as it made both houses of Congress susceptible to the whims of popularism. The only Amendment was was a larger error than that was the 16th.
Those two Amendments together gave the government unlimited power to take money from one group and grant it to the other. This set up the system whereby Peter could vote to receive Paul’s money.
Anonymous · July 28, 2024 at 11:11 pm
US Constitution falls to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation attack. Once we recognize the flaw it no longer matters what the original intentions were claimed to be, we now know it’s broken and if you pretend the flaw doesn’t exist that’s propaganda.
Gerry · July 27, 2024 at 10:03 am
I am all for those reforms.
Right after they pass the amendment that limits Congress to 12 years of “service” in both and/or the House and Senate.
McChuck · July 27, 2024 at 10:05 am
*laughs in Supreme Court* You ain’t the boss of me!
Michael · July 27, 2024 at 10:44 am
Words matter, that’s why 1984 spent so much time with doublethink and re-defining words.
Does War is peace
Slavery is Freedom
Ignorance is strength sound familiar?
Democracy sounds so ah democratic (lol) but is at its heart Mob Rule where 51% of the voters (even dead and illegal ones it seems) can vote to put the 49% to death for crimes against “OUR Democracy”.
Our Forefathers KNEW a lot about rule by King and SAW the effects of the French Revolution Democracy in action. Madam Guillotine was a busy lady.
They WORKED HARD to develop a New Experiment where a Republic with Rule of Law replaced Mob rule and Royality-serf relations.
There is a REASON they made our Government so Inefficient. The Courts were to ENFORCE Rule of Law, even against public (read MOB) opinions. They wanted public citizen discussion and open choice vs small Kingdom rule.
Smaller population states DIDN’T WANT a few big cities to dictate who got elected so the Electoral College happened. So even smaller states had some horsepower in the election.
Even Maine and NH with less population together than NYC had 4+4 electoral votes.
Thus, the reasons the Democrats (spit) want to destroy or PACK the Courts, (see Soros for a LOT of Blue Cities Court officers) and the electoral college.
Economic realities do have affects, however. Harris can Promise ALL the Free Shit she wants and “Forget afterwards” but…
How much more plate spinning can the Federal Reserve (Neither Federal nor a Reserve) maintain as the world continues to demand Higher interest for buying American Debts AKA T-Bills?
I’m actually a bit CONCERNED that the Democrats would ALLOW Trump to “Win” and allow Him and the Make America Great crowd EAT the Greater Depression as they set our economic house of cards ablaze, to “Clear the economic debts issue”.
I.E. Let Trump and Co to deal with a national bankruptcy, do a LOT of Media about how BAD it is under Trump like they did to Hoover in the last Great Depression and PLAN on Returning with a Rap version of “Happy Days are Here again” just like they did for Roosevelt the avowed Socialist and Gold thief to pay for his “New Deal”.
BTW back then there were many banks, no banking insurance and so when they went broke you lost the cash in it. THUS, Gold Coin was the Family Reserves. THAT’s why robbing Americans and forcing them to sell or go to prison was robbery.
Wonder what the theft will be this time? Banning cash for e-dollars to replace the failing dollar? That it’s a perfect tax control and political control device is a feature, not a bug.
Sorry Comrade you cannot BUY that item, purchase denied, please report to reeducation for a better social score.
Sorry for the long-winded comment. Real trouble isn’t a soundbite discussion item.
Get ready for real troubles ™.
Charlie · July 27, 2024 at 11:03 am
Sponge Brain Shits Pants has to know there’s this thing called ‘co-equal branches of government’. He can no more call for reforms in the Judicial Branch than he could in the Congress. All for show. The irrelevant bleating of a brain dead jackass.
whatever · July 27, 2024 at 8:00 pm
I’ll bet there’s an October surprise like this brewing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
Which will lead to a Dem majority decertifying a Trump victory and rubberstamping a SCOTUS takeover.
wojtek · July 27, 2024 at 11:05 am
I think the point of these actions is entirely different. They lost a big chunk of the youth. Not to Trump or anyone else. Just not going to vote. So they need to fabricate some issues that they can raise, which will bring the kids back to them. Dealing with old men (or women, it doesn’t really matter) who have great jobs for life will certainly resonate well. On top of that it always pays off to paint opposition as corrupt.
It’s a mistake to assume they are just venting.
D · July 27, 2024 at 11:20 am
Let’s not forget their stupidity about ex post facto law.
They can’t just change the law to make something a crime, then go back and jail someone who at the time was doing something legal….and if they can, none of their stupid people will be protected either.
Michael · July 27, 2024 at 1:39 pm
wojtek is correct “It’s a mistake to assume they are just venting.”
When you enemies are promising your death or enslavement, maybe you should take him seriously.
We keep talking like the Constitution is the LAW of the Land.
It should be but what has been done to enforce that?
The Supreme Court may or may not decide they have “Standing” to even address the situation like the fake election cases. Please correct me if I am mistaken but did the Supremes EVER judge a fake ballot question and deem it a falsehood under the law?
EO’s are decrees from the KING If supported by the Deep State. After all the President is their face man (puppet).
Brutus · July 27, 2024 at 4:55 pm
People who prattle on about ethics often lack morals. Ethics often are used as a tool for tricking the rubes into getting fleeced.
Noway2 · July 28, 2024 at 1:47 am
A bunch of democrat shit posting. Really no different than Trump’s impossible day 1 agenda.
Stefan v. · July 28, 2024 at 7:28 am
Murder, rape, kidnapping, treason, sodomy, narcotic dealing get death penalty by public hanging.
Proven false accusers get the maximum sentence their victim would have suffered.
Judges must speedily discover the truth.
Thieves must repay their theft plus a fourfold penalty.
No income taxes.
Universal right to keep and bear any arms.
No forced state schooling.
No islam.
No dual citizens in office.
Voting restricted to natural born citizens in good standing, same day paper secret ballot, inked thumb, open monitoring.
Armed neutrality.
Borders enforced with lethal means, entry only by visa at official crossing points.
No public sector unions, no affirmative action hiring or admissions, no qualified immunity.
No standing army or spying services. These functions to be drawn from state militias, under strict independent citizen monitoring.
Diligent anti-monopoly laws, fifty-year jubilee on private lands, no foreign ownership of lands or businesses.
etc….
TakeAHardLook · July 28, 2024 at 12:06 pm
The SCOTUS has one job–one function only–to interpret lower court rulings in the context of “Constitutional or NOT Constitutional.”
That’s it! The fact that the justices constantly vote along party/ideology lines is an abomination.
Our survival as a Nation of laws is intertwined with SCOTUS’ Decisions.
I knew we were TOAST when the SCOTUS REFUSED (in 2020) to hear arguments on ELECTION FRAUD. When they took a PASS we took it in the ASS.
Divemedic · July 28, 2024 at 12:51 pm
SCOTUS wasn’t there for that at first, it was Marbury v. Madison that put the court in the position of Constitutional v. Unconstitutional.
Comments are closed.