Biden signs executive order on Supreme Court reform commission

I think McConnell beat Biden to the punch-- if you could even consider getting a knowledgeable group, to focus study on a subject that has given us all these divisive turns in our government, but which is not being addressed in either of the other 2 branches, as saying, "never mind," to unity. How is that the case? Study= anti-Republican bias? Sounds like the complaint of someone who knows that his side has done something wrong.

 

Options that the Constitution says the President can enforce and require of the SCOTUS? Where does the Constitution grant oversight authority over the SCOTUS to the Executive Branch? Where does the Constitution say the Executive branch shall determine for the SCOTUS case selection, rules, and practices?

And as I noted the commission is not even supposed to issue any
recommendations so what is the purpose? What does Biden with all his 47 years of experience need to be told by this commission? And no the size of the court has not been repeatedly changed and even Ginsberg said it should not be changed.

 

If what it studies is unconstitutional, there is no problem. If what it studies has already been studied, there still is no problem. Most problems get studied more than once. If Biden does not learn because of his 47 years, there is still no problem. Someone else may. Ginsberg is like everyone else, liable to be wrong once and again. Maybe this time.

 

Why do we need another study with all we already have MANY? Well he did learn at one time because he very VOCALLY opposed the idea of increasing the size of the SCOTUS and did so UNEQIVALENTLY. So he's known for years it should not be done, what does he need a commission for now? Are where does he get off at all the the Judicial Branch wants to hear from him who they run their affairs. Do they get to tell him how he should run his office and how he should decide foreign policy matters and how he should deploy the military?

So you are going to simply dismiss Ginsberg now, can you cite me any Justices current or in say the last 100 years that called for and expansion?

 

Calling for a study with one potential result being something that will divide the nation greater than anything we have seen in the past is anything but UNITY. And UNITY was Biden's promise, not McConnell's.

 

I am not dismisses Ginsberg because she did not take a stand against a commission to study reform of SCOTUS. I am dismissing you instead.
Maybe justices are as likely to take a favorable stand on reform of their profession as Congressmen are about term limits. Your problem is that you think Biden has to learn your favorite lesson and keep it learned your way. The commission is not just studying about numbers of court justices, so stop pretending it is. You are whining into your partisan scotch glass and it makes you look like a GOP barfly . Wait until the commission takes its testimony, finishes its work and resultant summary/ report, and then discuss the results.

 

I agree — it was stupid for Biden to call for unity with a group that is interested only in obstruction, stagnation and winning by any means even if it requires dismantling our democracy.

 

Justice Breyer just basically let China Joe's handlers know that this dog will not hunt. If a very Left Judge is not good with it, then this is dead from the start.

This is just more of the Democratic Party dividing us further while attempting to seize power.

 

Ginsberg didn't need a commission to tell her something which she could quite clearly and quite unequivocally decide on her own. If rules and decisions on what case should be heard needs reform then it for the Chief Justice to do so or the Legislature. Again should the SCOTUS tell the President how he should appoint his cabinet staff and the rules under which they would decide which issues to persue? There is nothing partisan it's called constitutional. And we have had commissions to study this in the past and all those are already available for Biden to read and for the Congress to read.

And yes this is Biden trying to get out of his refusal to state during the campaign what he believed on the issue. He does as he and all those worthless politicians when faced with an issue "LOOK I formed a commission, what a great leader I am".

 

The only side willing to compromise and mover forward.

 

Wow you are sensitive about this. Silly but sensitive. Nothing about this commission study precludes the Chief Justice or Congress from deciding what they want to do to reform the system within their scope of authority. Matter of fact, they will probably even be allowed to read the result and add it to their voluminous information sources. Nothing about it provides a millimeter more authority to the executive branch, than it already has. The heads of all three branches of our federal govt, are free to opine as they will about the way another does its job - and they all do! They advocate for action that they think will provide better results, and advocate against action that represents a danger. And all three get to tell each other when that advice is well taken and when to mind their own business. Relax. The commission will either come up with something of value or not. Let's see.

 

Oh just can that........................it's not about me.

 

You just defined Democrats from November 5, 2008 and especially so with their criminal actions to overthrow the presidency from November 9, 2016. Dems don't get to point fingers when they have been the problem for well over 12 years!

 

So calling someone small minded is not an insult in your book? Care to explain that?

 

Are you saying the if the "commission" suggests keeping the number of Justices the same the Radical left will be fine with that and drop their calls to stack the court?

 

Democrats tried to obstruct during Obama’s two terms?

When you say overthrow the presidency do you mean “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” or this “When it comes to spending, I'm not compromising. I don't care who, what, when or where, I'm not compromising,” or this “If he was for it, we had to be against it.”

Was it the Democrats that gleefully advertised themselves as the party of no?

You must be joking.

As for removing trump — he was a criminal and violating the oath of his office, the followed their constitutional requirements. The impeachment’s were bipartisan

 

I see that quote so overused its not funny.

Its the goal of both parties in a two party system to try to take the seat taken by the other party.. Are you new to politics or just like trotting out the overused quotes?

 

Did you have this outrage when the radical right blocked a hearing to replace a justice named by Obama and then expedited that of another justice who was nominated late in the term of a president who then was defeated?

 

Obama was not running for re-election.. Trump was.. Do you see the difference?

Do you know the history of lame duck Presidents when it comes to nominating to the highest court? Do you know the outcomes depending on who controls the Senate? Its been quoted here countless times surely you read it once.

 

YOU can think whatever you want to think BUT that does NOT alter the FACT that Biden has the AUTHORITY to empanel a committee to determine a COMPROMISE solution to END the Q-GOP's nefarious intentions and ACTIONS intended to USURP the Judicial Branch.

 

Calling someone small minded would definitely be an insult — can you direct quote me where I said “you are small minded”?

I believe I said “I have no issues speaking out against violence no matter who is the perpetrators — I don’t understand why is is so difficult for some of you.” which means some people have an issue speaking about about violence in general unless it sides with their narrative.

How you turned that into “small minded” is interesting however.

 

Why do you see a vote against your agenda as Usupering and how can you think with that mindset there can be compromise?

 

I did not say you said.. i pointed out how you bragged to another poster who did... Keep spinning for all your worth..

 

The excuse was we should let the people decide the next SCOTUS. You are correct what they did was constitutional. But to turn around less than four years later and say we need to ram this one through because the people are about to fire us is politically unethical.

Not that y’all care as it is win by any means necessary. Don’t be mad when the Democrats start reviewing constitutional ways to correct how they have been slighted.

 

So your response is that you are aware that Obama was denied his constitutional right to name a candidate within the law and historical practice while Trump's was passed through later than any ever before in near record time. Definitely record time for a presidential candidate. OK. Think about what you are trying to mock me for.