First, no, Joe Biden did not write this screed. They won’t tell us who did.
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden called for major changes to the Supreme Court on Monday, including a constitutional amendment that would limit immunity for presidents, impose term limits for justices and stipulate an enforceable code of ethics.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Biden said “no one is above the law.”
“Not the president of the United States,” he wrote. “Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.”
[…]
Biden, who served as a U.S. Senator for 36 years, wrote that he had overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today.
Remember that Biden would not be proposing any of these things if the court were reliably issuing ruling that the liberals want. For 50 years, the court leaned Left and nobody proposed these kinds of things. Now that the court has tilted slightly right for less than a decade, liberals have decided that the court needs to be blown up.
Thankfully, none of this stands a chance of passing with a divided Congress and a lame duck President. It is curious that he would push it at all. Harris is the Leftist standard-bearer now. By tipping their hand that the Leftists want to radically usurp the power of the Supreme Court, does this help Harris? She will have to now offer her position on his reforms, right? Or is this a setup where Harris will come out against these “reforms” to make her look more moderate? Or is Biden just a bitter old man who wants to demonstrate that he still matters?
Curious…
This has no chance of passing. But, I also don’t see any issues with these proposals. I would actually like to see term limits for Congress as well. And eliminate all stock trading for members of Congress and their spouses.
I would like to see exact ethics and immunity language before I would give a full hearted support. Current polling seems to support these measures. Personally I would grandfather in current SCOTUS and only have it apply to future appointments.
Owen posits that we wouldn’t see this if the court were left-leaning. I return with you would be supporting more ethics issues if it was a left-leaning judge that was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and vacations from left-leaning donors.
>Owen posits that we wouldn’t see this if the court were left-leaning.
Now are you going to demand proof too? This isn’t true because we can’t prove that leading (unknown) Democrats actually stated their purpose for these SCOTUS changes? (And if a recording could be produced, it would be called false by Dems, which you would believe) Once again, common sense has no place in liberal ‘reasoning’.
There were 50 years of leftist courts, were there any Republican calls for ‘reforming’ the Supreme court during those years? Lookee there, something provable. The answer is no, so once again, the ‘Your side is doing it too and probably worse!!!’ is false, but it doesn’t matter, deaf ears and all.
And notice that there are no term limits being proposed for Congress which routinely receives billions of dollars in bribes while refusing to do their jobs.
Which is fine with Democrats because with the lower courts and the Presidency, Congress is pretty much useless without a supermajority. Dems just need the highest court back, hence the proposed changes AT THIS TIME.
I agree with many of the reforms as well if also applied to all elected officials, stop your comment there and you make sense like a thinking person. You just can’t hold back the programming, though, too bad.
T, how does this “usurp” the SCOTUS? And this wouldn’t be such a huge deal in the public if Thomas hadn’t looked like such a bought and paid for shill! I have no idea if he is, but accepting all of the free shit, sure looks sus. And there SHOULD be some repercussions for lack of disclosure, which there currently isn’t. Maybe it wasn’t proposed before this because there wasn’t a problem before this, or at least known about.
Recent polling shows that much of this is supported by the general public. Term limits for congress are probably supported as well and I said I would support them.
Frankly I don’t care the numbers of Left / Right judges as they tend to mostly come towards the middle once in the court. What I care about is the look of corruption, regardless of WHO it is. But you can’t see past partisan BS. Most of the disclosure stuff that is proposed is already STANDARD for elected officials, but not the SCOTUS. Not a SINGLE person is talking about removing current members or replacing them immediately. And no one in power is actually talking about packing the court. This is a pretty straight forward checks and balances.
A nice list of BS the SCOTUS has been up to.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/07/29/supreme-court-ethics-controversies-all-the-scandals-that-led-biden-to-endorse-code-of-conduct/
Clarence Thomas has been Conservative all his life. But only in the last 2 years he’s corrupt?
Just another in the long, long,l long line of Democrat projections.
Dad29. I don’t know if he is corrupt. He has been pretty consistent with his rulings, with the exception of one or two.
But I can say that it has just come to light all of the “perks” he has been taking advantage of from very wealthy businessmen. I mean, getting a “loan” for 200K that you didn’t need to pay back.. not such a bad deal. All without any sort of disclosure until they recently came to light. Some may call that influence peddling. I am a fan of checks and balances at all levels, and if the additional ethics checks can help prop up the SCOTUS in the eyes of the public, I don’t see any issues with that.
>T, how does this “usurp” the SCOTUS?
I didn’t say that or use the word usurp anywhere, so are you talking about Owen’s post remark? I cannot but guess what he means, but I took it to mean that the usurpation was in trying to increase the number of Justices on the court or trying to make a law and then prosecute Thomas for it. They had to change a law in the Trump trial too, making paying a prostitute over 7 years ago a felony rather than a misdemeanor beyond statute limits so we know it is not beneath the current courts to prosecute along partisan lines anymore. Whoever is POTUS when such a measure is put in place will control the partisan make-up of the court. I would be against this particular measure if it was headed by Reps as well, being just a power play. And frankly, I would prefer a decrease over an increase. Now that the court is going to be forever partisan, only an odd number is important and 7 seems like a good number. What is the difference between a 7-6 or 4-3 decision? The usurpation of the court also includes the ethics as now the other branches would have the power to add or remove Justices with true or Trumped up charges.
I strongly support any term limits where there are currently none, I just find the practice of selectively targeting term limits for a Government arm that Dems don’t currently own to be just a bit dodgy. If there were a Government arm that need limits it is the legislative branch. Start there and you have me regardless of Party.
I agree with the idea of ethics for all, but based on recent history would be concerned that Dems and possible future Reps would do nothing but make allegations as any proof was found or seamlessly created for any crime (like what has been happening to Trump). And if they have the power and the requisite majority to successfully accuse and oust a Justice (or POTUS) of broken ethics then they have completely usurped the power of the court. Now in the moment, if Thomas was proven to have accepted millions in gifts while none of the others broke whatever limit for penalty seems reasonable, I would be for dismissing Thomas, so long as it is after 1/25/25. If the Dems win they name the successor, if Reps win they do. Trying to get this done ahead of his step down would smack of partisan hackery. and if POTUS pardons are not also targeted for change, why not?
Honestly, I have no issues with POTUS pardons. It’s one of those perks that is almost a “thank you” for being president. Honestly, take it or leave it is how I feel.
I wouldn’t even want any term limits for the current batch of SCOTUS, I would personally implement it for future SCOTUS. And to be totally fair, I would prefer the ethics portion over the term limits. I am not worried about your concerns of them ousting a justice… they have had the ability up to now and haven’t done it. But having a stricter set of rules on when you need to recuse yourself or some sort of limit on gifts you can accept is more important to me.
FWIW. I would be in favor of term limits for all officials overall.
They didn’t “change” the law for Trump, they very loosely interpreted another law to squeeze what he did into it. I didn’t love the way they did it honestly. I think the documents case was WAY stronger and they should have focused on pursuing that. But Bragg ran on prosecuting him and found a way to make it happen. I don’t even think that the Biden Administration wanted Bragg to pursue it behind the scenes, because they were focusing on the other Trump issues and didn’t think he could win. Bragg wanted to make a name for himself.
I mean, getting a “loan” for 200K that you didn’t need to pay back.. not such a bad deal.
Thomas paid interest of ~$20K/year for 10 years when Welter forgave the note, remarking that the RV wasn’t worth thre principal. I’m sure you looked up Welters’ background on Wiki.
Which health-care decisions favoring United Health did Thomas make?
As to the ‘gift’ reporting for IRS—yup. Looks like Thomas screwed up on that. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
Oh….by the way……speaking of “loans” that “don’t have to be paid back,” shall we take a hard look at the corrupt Biden “college loan forgiveness” program?
Or does bribery and corruption only count when it’s a black guy who’s off the reservation?
lol. So you are calling Thomas a deadhead loser who can’t pay off his obligations that he agreed to! Good to know.
I don’t doubt that he paid for 10 years personally, but he still owed $250,000 on that loan based on the interest of 7.5% claimed. And then didn’t disclose on his taxes either. He may be a tax cheat too!
Dad29 is saying that if a student pays enough to cover most of the amount of the original loan, it is ok to forgive that loan. Good to know. That was my stance too!
I don’t care that he got a loan, I don’t care what the interest actually was vs what they put on the paper. Just fucking disclose it! Don’t try to hide it and look shady.
I’m sure even KBJ knows better than to accept ethics advice from a perverted, advanced dementia patient whose family business is selling out the American people to primarily communist foreign interests while simultaneously participating in income obfuscation and criminal tax avoidance schemes. Perfectly entertaining for their low-wattage constituency though.
>Dad29 is saying that if a student pays enough to cover most of the amount of the original loan, it is ok to forgive that loan. Good to know. That was my stance too!
First, what I remember of your stance on loans was to forgive everyone. Second 20k *10 years is 200k. If the loan giver is for cancelling the debt at full payback less interest I am okay with that, and since it was a private party, we all have to be okay with that. There is no law or ethic broken. Now if the Government just started saying interest doesn’t matter on student loans, but we ALL end up paying the interest, that is comparing apples to oranges.
If a shooter manages to kill Trump or Harris and the killer was caught but admitted nothing, would you be okay with the POTUS who gained by it to pardon the killer? Just curious, I don’t care that much about it either except that so many pardons are given for doing illegal things that directly benefited the sitting POTUS. So even when politicians or their lackeys get caught they serve little or no time. It seems pretty unethical to me to just let every criminal go that committed crimes for the pardoner, so I thought it germane to the subject.
> I am not worried about your concerns of them ousting a justice… they have had the ability up to now and haven’t done it.
It is the first time it was done to a former President, a trial purely based purely on politics. Conservative Justices are even now being set up to be in the crosshairs. You are not worried because it isn’t Joe Biden on trial ,just his to be pardoned son), it is Trump whom you at least politically hate. Why would any conservative feel safe from the ‘law’ after the Trump trial with its ‘loose interpretation’ of felony by a 100% partisan court and jury. If libs can just magically interpret misdemeanors into felonies of a former POTUS, you bet your ass they will continue down that profitable path right up until they no longer control the courts.
By dismissing the loan, technically that is considered a gift or income and he needed to claim that on his taxes as such… and didn’t. Which is why I sarcastically called him a tax cheat as well. Oh yeah, AND DISCLOSE IT.
T. My stance was that payments should be income based and then dismissed after 20 years. Or if the student has already paid up to the initial amount of the loan the interest should be dismissed assuming they missed no required payments. As a policy in the future I think I would like something like this.
1. Gov’t loan at 0% interest for schooling. No option to dismiss or forgive the loan.
2. Gov’t loan at low interest rate, income based repayment for 20 years. Anything the student doesn’t pay back, the school needs to cover.
3. Private loans or private school, you are on your own with a private company. But limit the interest rates for school loans.
IMO colleges have access to too much “free money” from students. That is one of the reasons school tuitions have been skyrocketing over the past 20 years. I would also like to see some incentives for tech colleges & apprenticeships because we have a severe shortage in blue collar jobs and tradesman currently.
But now we have gone off the rails of the original topic. I am gonna tap out on this one.
Cool then I get the last word:).
Public Colleges don’t get too much money from students, they get it from the Government at every level. They get it from the loans, they get it from the public funding, they get it all from the public. If it was from students there would not be this lack of paying the Gov’t back.
So my policy would be more like this:
No Gov’t loans at all, private loans only. If this halves the number of students. so be it, we have our blue collar workers back.
There can be a Government fixed interest rate, but student loans should never have been part of a national Government policy in the first place. You are saying that if someone goes to College and then drops out or never uses their degree and flips burgers, we pay for their mistakes. Your way would include a son of someone like Trump (who has used many unsavory laws to avoid paying things like most of the super-wealthy, that is what the expensive CPAs are for) could take out a couple of 100k in loans to bum around schools for 5-10 years, then be a trust fund baby and pay virtually nothing back because their tax accountant advised them to pay the income based minimum. And the public schools will now need a liability fund which they will get from Gov’t funding, because the Deans and staff won’t be taking any pay cuts. The ‘liability’ that the public schools need to cover is covered by us as they get their money through funding and a large bit from tuitions paid for with student loans, i.e. also the Government. So that is a solution that is no solution, it is just institutionalizing us paying the up front costs and the balance automatically after 20 years.
Private schools, yep, what you said.
When I went to school in West Bend the Freshman class played an international simulation game. I did exactly what you are suggesting. I received ‘political points’ for loans, but was given negative points for aid. So I gave loans with no payback dates for political points. Today the Government is giving money away for votes, same thing, really. Citizens pay for the loans in the first place (the loans) and then pay any principle and interest the Government will still collect after the debt is forgiven in 20 years. No individuals will pay them off, why would they?
If a post brings up a good conversation in the comments, I am good with that.
Funny how jv is so worried about a loan for 200,000.. but says nothing about loans for far more… More than 5 million… That have been found in documentation.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/hldhunter-kept-afloat-millions-fathers-democrat-donors-after
many unsavory laws to avoid paying things like most of the super-wealthy, that is what the expensive CPAs are for
Wrong, my friend.
That is what CONGRESS’s lawmaking is for. Or “not”-lawmaking, as in TRA ’86 which was written entirely by General Electric’s treasury gnomes.
Today the Government is giving money away for votes, same thing,
THIS is the reason that JonnyV ran away and hid; he cannot argue with you here. (He also sprayed a lot of foo-foo dust in the air with his ‘proposals’ and ‘suggestions.’ Keeps you away from the real vote-purchasing goin’ on.
>Wrong, my friend.
I’ll accept that distinction, but my thought was based on the idea that Congress writes sweetheart loopholes for the super wealthy at their behest. However, I would bet that Trump and Bezos don’t know specifically about a single tax loophole. They pay a CPA to find them in the tax code and use them. Knowing what you ordered is one thing, but I would not expect anyone worth a 1/2 billion or more to be able to find the loopholes in the tax code by themselves.
So you are saying that without Congress the loopholes would not exist, while I am saying that the super wealthy ordered those loopholes in exchange for campaign money and any other ‘considerations’. So without them and their money the loopholes would not exist. So you are not wrong, but I don’t think I am either.
>Keeps you away from the real vote-purchasing goin’ on.
Eh, everyone knows about it, it is just a question whether you choose to believe the truth or the Kool-aid on the issue. So there is nothing to ‘keep away’ from if you choose to believe that food, drink, etc. are not really vote purchasing, it is feeding the poor. JV thinks Kamala is a mystery even though her record clearly screams what she believes and we know exactly how she’ll behave. So with all the writing and re-writing of her opinions and past stances she must be an exciting new mystery, because who knows truth, right?
K, and yes: CPA’s and tax lawyers have to guide their clientele through the maze. One suspects, however, that far more loopholes are written for corporate entities vs. individuals.
Either way, your children and grand-children lose.
Dad29, no that isn’t why I tapped out. The conversation veered off subject and at some point you just have to move on. And no, I don’t know how Kamala will govern until she is put in the big spotlight. Until we find out what Congress is made up like. Every politician says whatever they think people want to hear to get into the Oval office and then reality punches them in the face. Look at all the promises Trump made in 2016 vs what he ACTUALLY did.
And I gave my ideal school situation based on what T said he thought I believed.
Jason, I don’t give a shit about Hunter’s art purchases. he isn’t in power. If you still care about anything Hunter did, you are distracted. Keep it up! You don’t think that politician’s kids get preferential treatment and jobs you have your head in the sand. AKA see Chelsea Clinton & Jenna Bush. Corporations buy favors in a LOT of ways. Like maybe a loan to a justice that you can write off? Who knows?
Again… tapping out on this as it has basically run its course. See you in another thread.
>And I gave my ideal school situation based on what T said he thought I believed.
Huh? So that means you did not state what your ideal school loan situation is? You wrote what I thought you believed? Sorry, doesn’t make sense.
>Jason, I don’t give a shit about Hunter’s art purchases. h
I didn’t say anything about “Art” idiot. Try to keep up, please.
> If you still care about anything Hunter did, you are distracted.
I pointed out facts about how you care about one and not the other. One is a R and one is a D. One is a value of X, the other is a value of 50*X.
If you still care about an R’s small loan that was paid off without interest, you’re the distracted one.