Supreme Court
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
Seriously, just watch the first 2 minutes of this.
Clarence Thomas hides millions in gifts/bribes from conservative billionaires, undoubtedly not paying a dime in taxes. Democrats push to appoint a special counsel to investigate Thomas's millions in gifts. Thomas adds a concurring opinion to another case saying hey these special counsels we've been doing for decades aren't so legal all of a sudden! (Sidenote: not a single other SC judge signed onto that opinion). Judge Cannon who's blatantly in the bag for Trump says hey you know what you might be right! Now Supreme Court that Clarence Thomas sits on will get to decide if special counsels are constitutional. The special counsels that Democrats were just urging to investigate Thomas's blatant corruption.
Spoiler alert: Thomas will not recuse.
Spoiler alert: Thomas will not recuse.
Last edited:
Stillwater Townie
Deputy
Has it been determined if the wealthy people giving bribes had supreme court cases that affected them or their companies?
If I remember correctly the answer is yes but not googling at the moment.
Approval rating for the SC reached a new low this week. By a 16-point margin, men are more likely than women to approve of the court, and by a 17-point spread voters ages 65 & over are more likely than those under 30 to approve.
On July 1, in a historic decision, the high court ruled former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official actions taken while in office. The survey, released Tuesday, finds a 56% majority of voters disapprove of the immunity decision. That includes 8 in 10 Democrats (82%), 7 in 10 independents (68%), and nearly 3 in 10 Republicans (27%).
Overall, 41% approve of the immunity decision.
mugatu
Ranger
Still don't think anything will happen but at least someone on the court is saying it needs to.
mugatu
Ranger
Loading…
www.reuters.com
July 26 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the Supreme Court on Monday, Politico reported citing two people familiar with the matter, adding he was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.
Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.
He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July Supreme Court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
PF5
Ranger
great idea...won't pass...
www.bbc.com
Biden criticises 'extreme' Supreme Court in push for reform
US president proposes fixed terms and an enforceable code of ethics to "restore trust in the court".
www.bbc.com
I wish they had kept the presidential immunity issue separate. While both are important, it would have been better to announce the desire to reform the court only and get that passed, or more likely at least get republicans on record opposing it. By muddling it with the immunity issue, that gives cover.great idea...won't pass...
Biden criticises 'extreme' Supreme Court in push for reform
US president proposes fixed terms and an enforceable code of ethics to "restore trust in the court".
Agree the SC reform is needed. Not sure if this format is optimal, but it's definitely headed in the right direction. I haven't been looking for other proposals, but I think the phasing in process is good, and a term limit is far better than an age limit.
That said, I think the presidential immunity issue was included precisely to get the Rs on record opposing the SC changes. Because the Rs supported presidential immunity they're being forced to either make a hypocritical reversal and admit it was more Trump than principle, or vote against SC reform, which probably 80% of Americans support in some form. Actually quite well played by Joe's handlers.
If either side cared as much about America as they do about partisan politics the lone SC issue(s) could be hammered out in committees and fly through Congress. But they don't.
Agree that SC term limits would have large support from the public.
This does seem a very smart political move by Biden. However, it rings a little hollow…especially since he has been a very vocal supporter of lifetime appointments for SC justices in the past and during his 2020 Presidential campaign.
He has been in the executive branch for almost 12 years and in the Senate for decades. But only makes this proposal right after he decided to end his term as President and as an elected official.
Last edited:
Ummm there may have been a few things in the news recently that had an ever so slight impact on Biden announcing this now...
I’d say Biden changed his position when we all observed the court and it’s conservative judges showing partisanship , taking bribes, and refusing to abstain from cases where they clearly have a stake or spouse involved
Proposal for term limits on Supremes is a good idea, IMO.
I am very aware of that Biden is only making the proposal now due to the situation. Hence it is a smart political move.
Similar threads
