It will not matter. It needs ratification by 2/3 of the states. First, that could take a very long time (if ever). Second, about half are red states who would oppose it anyway.
Yeah, but this combined with the abortion issue could really drive voter turn out. I feel like that one-two punch could really shake things up.
nevermind
So Mr Saur if President Biden decided to order the assassinations of some of my colleagues on this court so he could fill the resulting vacancies would that be an official act? 
Eh…the justices are well aware of that trick. They will not let that happen.
They will give immunity to do whatever you want EXCEPT kill/imprison anyone with a lifetime appointment in the government. Doubtless they will use more lofty language to make it sound good.
Eh, at this rate we’re one or two elections short of a president/aspirant just saying “F-it, will no one rid me of this meddlesome __________?!”
And then absolutely pardoning them.
Which is something this SCOTUS seems A-OK with regardless of whether or not they make a judgement on this particular abuse of presidential power.
A few times I’ve read the saying “the law is a shield, not a sword.” We need a shield against an executive with immense power more than he needs a sword to wield it.
Quoted for emphasis.
It is beyond absurd to claim the mantle of strict constructionist or originalist and not be crystal clear that a President of the United States is not a monarch, but a citizen subject to the laws of the nation.
The founding fathers had just fought a fucking revolution to establish this point.
And any distinction between official and private acts is a nonsensical red herring. The president is always subject to following the law. If he violates it while he’s in office, he can be impeached to be kicked out of office.
Then, once he’s not in office, he can be duly prosecuted for any crimes he’s committed.
But it’s not required that he be impeached. That is simply not found in the constitution, its history, or any existing law.
(The only cogent issue I can imagine expounding upon were I a Justice is the statute of limitations. I’d argue that it should be stayed while a person is serving as president, akin to being outside the jurisdiction. I do not think a sitting president should stand trial while in office, but I also don’t think a person should be able to run out the clock on some crime by serving in office).
So I just heard on the news that Gorsuch said, “We are writing a rule for the ages.”
I tried googling for a cite, but I can’t find a good concise one. I’m just seeing a lot of live update pages. It’s being quoted in headlines but I can’t find it in the body of the articles.
If true, I don’t even know what to say. The arrogance? You’re a judge applying the law to a case. Not priests bestowing “truth” upon the masses. Anyway this court already proved that nothing’s written in stone.
Point of order: San Diego. His dad was an anchor on the ABC affiliate and he went to La Jolla Country Day, a snooty prep school who were my high school’s quiz bowl rivals and almost always beat us.
Fortunately he graduated ten years before I did, because if we’d been the same age I probably would’ve beaten him up when I was young and reckless and much less disinclined to physical violence than I am now.
The whole thing is a nonsensical red herring and it blows me away that the Supreme Court would even begin to dignify it since it is transparently obvious that Trump made it up. And yet here they are, giving serious consideration to “the dog ate my homework” knowing full well Trump doesn’t have a dog! What kind of dog is it? Have similar dogs eaten similar homework in the past? If someone deliberately let a dog loose would the dog be responsible? If there was a kennel full of dogs and they all escaped at once, how much homework would be in danger of being eaten? There’s no goddamn dog!
Seems to me this is an illustration of why 1 man should not have the chance to appoint 3 justices on a court of 9.
I thought about this the other day. I wonder how Mitch will feel if his true legacy is that he destroyed the Supreme Court. I don’t mean by changing its ideological majority. I mean by its collapse as a trusted institution, the potential for states to simply refuse to follow future rulings, a loss of its authority to the extent that authority must have a foundation of credibility.
I truly do not believe SCOTUS can continue on this path indefinitely without there being extralegal consequences. I don’t mean an armed uprising. I mean a widespread “fuck that noise” rebellion of civil disobedience. “Yeah, you twisted, partisan assholes continue your debating society in D.C. But we’re done.”
Think about how the current pending decisions could play out. Picture a future “Trump” in the same circumstance. Their immunity appeal makes it to SCOTUS. “Jack Smith” sends no one to arguments. SCOTUS rules for “Trump.” Future Biden laughs and says, “Nope, full speed ahead.”
Emphasis mine.
Well put @Stratocaster .
More justices could be added, but I sure don’t like that idea. It will just continue to escalate with both parties. It’s hard enough to get a decision out of 9 of them.
What if we ended up with justices MTG, Lauran Boebart and Matt Gaetz?
Sleep well folks.
I think you’re right. In years past, SCOTUS has made decisions I disagreed with but retained my trust because I understood how they reached those decisions. And by understood I mean experts were able to explain the legal underpinnings that supported the court’s conclusions. What confidence I had in the Supreme Court has been eroded as I no longer feel they’re serious about interpreting the law in a fair and even manner. It’s essentially legal to bribe justices which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Yep. Then the expanded court should issue a decision that Republicans are barred from the Presidency (so they can’t have a turn with their own retaliatory packing). They could do it in the same case where they reinstate Roe.
And overturn Citizen’s United.
So much for the notion that the courts’ role is NOT to be writing rules.
For me it was when Brett Kavanaugh got on. Being able to put a justice on the court that matches your ideology is a feature not a bug. And yes there have been some nominated that shouldn’t have been but they end up not getting confirmed. But with Kavanaugh’s confirmation, it’s now “We don’t care anymore.” I guess you could even trace that back to Garland not getting an up/down vote on his nomination but either way it is clear the Senate has no desire to do their job of advise and consent.
For me it was the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Looking back I think the beginning of the end was when the Republicans prevented Obama from appointing a justice when he had an open spot under his watch. It’s not just the SCOTUS though, with Trump’s myriad legal problems we’ve had to worry about who appointed the judge presiding over his cases. It’s true that not every Trump appointee has gone out of their way to help him, but being worried about that is just an example of how much faith I’m losing in the court system as a whole.