Biden would Radically Change the Courts

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Biden would Radically Change the Courts

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
  • #1912651

    “If elected what I will do is I’ll put together a national commission of, bipartisan commission of, scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative. And I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack the way in which it’s being handled,

    This isn’t the only issue he’s flip flopped on over 47 years in office. All that on top of him stepping out of the 88 race due to having bad character.


    This lawyer would be very happy to see a complete overhaul of the Federal Court system…Go Joe.

    Shame 1 is too foolish to know things change in a 47 year span and so should opinions if need be.
    47 years ago it was legal to drink at 18 and buy cigarettes at 16, as someone just under 21 I thought that was great.
    Now I wouldn’t let anyone under 25 buy and concume alcohol and nobody should be allowed to smoke tobacco.
    That’s a change of opinion based on lefe experience, not as you say, a flip flop.

    It’s no secret you hate Biden, I”H he will soon be our President and the charlatan will be out of office and power and hopefully in prison.


    Why ctl because it isn’t majority Democrat? What a hack.


    If you’re wishing someone prison for no proven crime you probably have skeletons in your closet. Being the Democrat power player you are I wouldn’t be shocked if you’re a swamp tool.


    CTLAWYER, regardless of how one feels re:court packing, it is a valid legal option. What do you think about Biden’s obvious evasion? Yes, it may be in his interest, but I feel uncomfortable how little we know about Biden’s positions. So, he is making no promises and can do whatever he decides.

    He already broke the promise he made at the last week townhall. He conceded that voters should know his position on packing and he will announce his position “depending how the confirmation process goes”. Now, he is referring to a commission.

    In good old times, we were watching Soviet news to see who is standing closer to Brezhnev today and whether he looks sicker than usual. Now, we will be reading tea leaves again – is AOC or Joe Liberman heading the commission? If both, who is standing on the right?


    @1 “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” (variously attributed to John Maynard Keynes


    Is there any legitimate reason you want biden to win other than Trump’s character? Do you and other ywn biden supporters agree with biden that 8yr olds should be able to make the decision to be transgender? Do you side with the radical left? Do you realize that a biden presidency is a Harris presidency?


    CTLawyer -“It’s no secret you hate Biden, I”H he will soon be our President and the charlatan will be out of office and power and hopefully in prison.”

    You surely Don’t know criminal law. The only one that is going to Fed. Prison is Creepy Joe.
    There is a whole Laptop of Criminal Activity.
    Sorry to Burst your Lib Dream of a Biden Presidency!


    biden in prison, I hope not, that would mean that trump took over.

    1 and health congrats on your amazing usernames



    For close to three generations the courts overturned everything that was traditional and Bedrock of American Life and conservatives could do little more than the mourn and mourn and mourn
    because the court was sacrosanct and untouchable and this was was it and it was liberal consensus to preach that we can’t touch with the makers of the law
    now all of a sudden it’s a shift the other way
    that’s it
    got you now all the sudden preaching a whole different tune
    Pernicious deceitful hypocrites


    I am not sure why some on both sides are trying to use courts. Courts are there to resolve disputes. We have Congress to write laws. If society agrees on something, it will become a law or even an amendment. If there is an meregency, we have Presidents, Governors, Mayors …

    If you push important decisions on judges, you take away pressure from elected representatives, who are now free to play games with OPM (other people’s money) instead of resolving serious problems.


    Democrats have always used the court as a legislator to push radical change that wouldn’t make it through congress. Republicans are trying to save some semblance of the country. Also 3 seats opened while Trump has been president so he’s filled 2 and hopefully 3.


    Always_Ask_Questions, both sides are trying to use the the courts since Congress is broken and the courts have a huge amount of power at the moment. Yet they are unelected and serve lifetime terms. At the same time, the courts have become more politicized than ever. In 1993, RBG was confirmed 96-3. Just 15 years ago, Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Unfortunately, the more undemocratic Senate has all the nominating power and I blame McConnell for a lot of the problems we’re facing now. Also, since there is no longer a filibuster, McConnell and the Republicans can confirm unqualified ideologues in their 30’s. Everything hinges on the next Senate and President.


    Just to put this out there………………….

    CTLawyer comes from a state where we don’t elect judges (excluding probate). They are recommended by the Bar association, appointed by the givernor and approved by the legislature.

    They have a mandatory retirement age of 70.

    they don’t have to kowtow to politicians to be chosen as a candidate, they don’t have to canpaign for office. they can afford to take a few years working for much less money than they make in private practice to serve the public good, because they can and often do return to private practice after leaving the bench.

    The first change I’d like to see in the Federal Court system is to have term limits, no more lifetime appointments.

    I’ve not posted one word about Federal judges being of either party. It’s about qualifications. I have great respect for some conservative judges and disdain for others. The same for liberal judges.
    One of the worst judges to ever have been on the SCOTUS bench was Abe Fortas, an LBJ appointee.


    The bar association leans strongly towards democrat and CT is a liberal state so you’re still getting judges with a liberal bent.


    Kavanaugh and Gorsuch had bipartisan praise before Trump.


    Politics influence courts. That is how politics works. For almost 250 years, American have considered having judges chosen by politicians to be a serious feature, not a bug. In fact, in many states, most judges are elected. In practice, an independent judiciary would mean one controlled by the leading law firms and law schools, reflect the upper class (in America, the 1%, largely reflect Wall Street and Silicone Valley at the expense of the rest of society).


    There are some incredibly talented federal trial court judges whose efforts have been negated by entrenched circuit court panels on both sides of the partisan split who fail to properly apply or ignore SCOTUS precedent. Also, circuit courts are increasingly allowing their cases to spill over into factfinding, which is not the role of an appellate body. Finally, each circuit has its own ability to set rules within certain parameters of the federal rules of procedure which often sets up artificial “splits” between the circuits. These are all ripe areas for reexamination, totally aside from the issue of “packing” the court with additional justices to compensate for “unpacking” the court by failure to allow the senate to advise/consent on a lawful nomination solely to gain political advantage.


    Benny, False. It started seriously with Democrat “borking” of Justice Bork in ’87 and nearly doing the same to Justice Thomas in ’90. For a while the Conservatives still went along with it eg 96-3 vote for RBG, but eventually realized it’s self and nationally destructive.

    Conservatives looking to emphasize the dire state have often quoted left-wing Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet that “For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars…My own judgment is that taking a hard line…is better than trying to accommodate …Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown [v. Board of Education]. And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.”


    CTL, Gh,
    1. Poland’s reigning Law And Justice party asserted their power re: the courts.
    What happened?
    your colleagues were frothing to the skies threatening sanctions and embargo and just about everything else “judicial Independence “”checks and balances “”the Judiciary must be kept in the completely free from the executive ”
    2. Canada and Israel have a largely self-appointed “independent” judiciary and a large proportion of the public want them reined in
    For that, your demographic goes berserk “how dare they “”we’ll lay it on the line to preserve Integrity of judicial Independence ”
    3. The Law Lords were the highest court of appeal in Britain For hundreds of years
    But Your political crowd claimed they weren’t “independent enough” of the legislature
    So 15 years ago they invented the UK Supreme Court conditioned upon limited jurisdiction
    for example it was beyond its right to rule on big issues in Northern Ireland
    A year ago it ignored and violated it’s conditions naturally and overturned conservative Northern Ireland legislation of abortion and SSM and your multinational ilk enthusiastically cheered it on
    And here in America which educated the world the conception the independence of the Courts and is structured upon the inviolability of those who determine the law
    and you parenthetically made your bread-and-butter career upon 
    the moment things don’t go your way
    “throw it all out” “pack the court”

    Should we retroactively disobey every liberal Court ruling that went against public opinion


    “Congress is broken, let’s use judges instead” argument sounds like admitting that Democracy is not working for you. It can be extended to “let’s use a dictator instead”.

    Progressives have their explanations – world needs progress, can’t wait for people to catch up. Understandable, but also dangerous. Conservatives have a dilemma, then, either play defense and try to protect the rules and integrity of the system – and suffering incremental defeats as attacks are relentless – or play the same political games… The longer it goes, the less democratic the system becomes.


    I don’t believe that the democrats are responsible for our current level of judicial partisanship because of the Bork nomination. That’s a revisionist history argument from McConnell. Bork didn’t even get all the votes of the Republican senators and was rejected primarily due to his publicly stated views. He should have been disqualified anyway for his role as a hatchet man in the Watergate scandal. Anyway, Reagan got to confirm Anthony Kennedy, who was a more appropriate choice. McConnell really deepened the mess by blocking the confirmation process of Merrick Garland in a pure power move. I’m not in favor on “judicial activism” from either side and would obviously prefer a functioning legislative branch. The courts have too much power at the moment and we should have term limits for judges. The invoking of the nuclear option in response to obstructionism has been a disaster. In my opinion, a 6-3 conservative majority court will be too friendly to powerful interests


    talking about revisionism
    “Kennedy, who Was a more appropriate choice !? Based upon who?!

    Watergate had zero to do with with it and received little mention in the media during  the controversy
    That the media expended so much to destroy him and prove that he was anti-black should prove how competent he was

    Did McConnell play hardball?
    So be it
    twas overdue & necessary


    I have a distaste for overly partisan judges. Ginsburg was a partisan judge, a woman whose thoughts and opinions were predictable. Such a partisan posture and judicial outlook is precisely what you don’t want when you walk into a court of law. You want a judge who might land on either side of the issue, who has an open mind to the arguments before him/her. That is called getting a fair shake. In a very real and palpable sense, America’s hyperpolarized politics are at odds with sound judgeship.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 82 in 2015. She had spent over 20 years on the highest court in the land. She had written numerous opinions of note by then. If she had departed the court then, she would have served 6 years longer than what is the average Supreme Court tenure.

    Her predecessor, a much more capable and wise judge than RBG ever was, Byron White, retired during Bill Clinton’s first term to ensure he was replaced by a fellow Democrat. White did what Ruth was incapable of doing, putting what he perceived to be the interests of the country before his own personal interests and aspirations. Still in his mid-70s, White was significantly younger in 1993 than Ginsburg was in 2015. If RBG had retired around 2015, Barack Obama could easily have replaced her. But alas, RBG was a narcissist until the end. That same narcissism has compelled her to comment time after time on political matters and political figures, statements that greatly undermine the standing and impartiality of the high court.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.