Biden vs. Trump Debates

[davidscott]

Totally agreed with all the negative Trump issues. But why will Biden not agree to answer the "Court Stacking" question? I have a REAL problem with this because if the Dems do stack the court in their favor what do you think the Republicans will do next time they get the chance? Hell we might end up with 20 or 30 Supreme Court Justices in 20 years. And a lifetime appointment to boot. But that is another issue for another thread.

 

[lovinthehd]

Totally agreed with all the negative Trump issues. But why will Biden not agree to answer the "Court Stacking" question? I have a REAL problem with this because if the Dems do stack the court in their favor what do you think the Republicans will do next time they get the chance? Hell we might end up with 20 or 30 Supreme Court Justices in 20 years. And a lifetime appointment to boot. But that is another issue for another thread.

Isn't the court stacking what the republicans are doing at this point? After the bullshit with replacing RBG, kinda a weird question to ask of the demos right now.

 

[panteragstk]

Totally agreed with all the negative Trump issues. But why will Biden not agree to answer the "Court Stacking" question? I have a REAL problem with this because if the Dems do stack the court in their favor what do you think the Republicans will do next time they get the chance? Hell we might end up with 20 or 30 Supreme Court Justices in 20 years. And a lifetime appointment to boot. But that is another issue for another thread.

I honestly think Biden won't answer the question because he probably doesn't know what he would do yet.

I do agree, if the dems add more justices just to even things out, the cycle will continue when the repubs get back in power. It's actually not that good of an idea.

 

[davidscott]

Isn't the court stacking what the republicans are doing at this point? After the bullshit with replacing RBG, kinda a weird question to ask of the demos right now.

Good point. Much as I disagree with the timing of this Republican nomination as it is so close to the election it is still replacing a judge. The Dems will add to the total number of judges (and if they do you can bet the Republicans will attempt to do the same when they get the chance.) And yes I get the irony since the Republicans blocked Obama's choice with 9 months left in his 2nd term and Trump is pushing it this through with much less time left in his possibly final term. Don't get me wrong I absolutely think the Justice appointment should wait until after the election but adding more Justices down the road will be going down a slippery slope.

 

[davidscott]

I honestly think Biden won't answer the question because he probably doesn't know what he would do yet.

I do agree, if the dems add more justices just to even things out, the cycle will continue when the repubs get back in power. It's actually not that good of an idea.

Yep a bad idea amplified with lifetime appointments.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Totally agreed with all the negative Trump issues. But why will Biden not agree to answer the "Court Stacking" question? I have a REAL problem with this because if the Dems do stack the court in their favor what do you think the Republicans will do next time they get the chance? Hell we might end up with 20 or 30 Supreme Court Justices in 20 years. And a lifetime appointment to boot. But that is another issue for another thread.

Well, not necessarily. Lifetime appointments can be reduced to say 15 years or 18 years for new judges, doubt it is in the constitution. And, if the numbers can be increased by law so can it be decreased by law. Stacking is also not on constitution.
The other point is what happened to the lower federal courts since moscow mitch took over if not stacking, limited obama and spent most of time stacking under trumpster.
And, I think the whole congress has to pass an increase to the sups. Hard to do if it is split.

 

[davidscott]

Well, not necessarily. Lifetime appointments can be reduced to say 15 years or 18 years for new judges, doubt it is in the constitution. And, if the numbers can be increased by law so can it be decreased by law. Stacking is also not on constitution.
The other point is what happened to the lower federal courts since moscow mitch took over if not stacking, limited obama and spent most of time stacking under trumpster.
And, I think the whole congress has to pass an increase to the sups. Hard to do if it is split.

Thanks for enlightening me on the lifetime appointment thing I didn't know that. A split congress while it slows things down is probably the safest way to go for this country no agenda being pushed down the American peoples throat.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, not necessarily. Lifetime appointments can be reduced to say 15 years or 18 years for new judges, doubt it is in the constitution. And, if the numbers can be increased by law so can it be decreased by law. Stacking is also not on constitution.
The other point is what happened to the lower federal courts since moscow mitch took over if not stacking, limited obama and spent most of time stacking under trumpster.
And, I think the whole congress has to pass an increase to the sups. Hard to do if it is split.

Apparently it is in the constitution, tho....(the lifetime thing)

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for enlightening me on the lifetime appointment thing I didn't know that. A split congress while it slows things down is probably the safest way to go for this country no agenda being pushed down the American peoples throat.

Well, this too is interesting. We had a split congress from 2018 and the federal courts were still stacked as senate and pres are same party.
And, Senate just sitting on 400+ bills from the house, not even debating let alone voting.
So, this too has a downfall.
Don't have an answer or I'd be in DC consulting them and making a bundle.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Apparently it is in the constitution, tho....(the lifetime thing)

I looked in Art. III didn't see lifetime only how to remove them, any federal judiciary, from office.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Apparently it is in the constitution, tho....(the lifetime thing)

No it isn't. Congress can change the term of SC judges with a majority vote, apparently.

 

[panteragstk]

To be honest it really shouldn't matter what party a judge is. Their job is to be impartial and intemperate the constitution. BUT we all know that's not really how it works.

 

[lovinthehd]

No it isn't. Congress can change the term of SC judges with a majority vote, apparently.

It's kinda like the second....it's an interpretation but a long standing one, of the "good behavior clause" Here's a piece on it https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause

 

[lovinthehd]

I looked in Art. III didn't see lifetime only how to remove them, any federal judiciary, from office.

See my reply to Irv.....the good behavior part is what they've been using.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

If the figures I am seeing on votes coming in turns out to be widespread Trump could lose easily. My guess is if he loses he will resign and ask Pence to pardon him. There's a flurry of cases in the pipeline that could be a real problem for Trump if he leaves with a Democrat as the President. He might have to move to Russia?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
sure djt has made many mistakes, ...

Mistakes or breaking the law?
Knowingly mislead the population about Covid?
Nepotism?
Emoluments
lying on the Impeachment paper he responded to
and most likely a bunch more.

 

[Irvrobinson]

It's kinda like the second....it's an interpretation but a long standing one, of the "good behavior clause" Here's a piece on it https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause

Yeah, my wife and I discussed this at length when she was in law school. The challenges are that IMO make SCJ term limits impossible:

1. Any law will get a challenge that ends up in front of the very judges who are affected by the law.

2. The only way to get a law passed in the first place will be if the party that wants limits controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's kinda like the second....it's an interpretation but a long standing one, of the "good behavior clause" Here's a piece on it https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause

Sure, it may have been interpreted on way but by no means that is the only interpretation. Good behavior doesn't mean lifetime to me.
Federalists papers talks about impeachment only way to remove. Yes, but that would apply even during an 18 year term and so would good behavior.
So, Barrett would certainly think and read that as law but others would not.
But, this too can be tested by a congressional Act as the number that established 9 jurists.
At least to me, and I don't count except at dinner that I am present, it is not spelled out as it could have been.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
2. The only way to get a law passed in the first place will be if the party that wants limits controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

That is almost given Both sides of congress has to be the same majority, Not sure about a Congressional act that I see referred to to change SC numbers was also must be signed by a president.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

In Trump’s view, the presidency exists to further his personal interests. This has led some state attorneys general, to bring suits for violations of provisions such as the Constitution’s emoluments clause against Trump in his personal capacity, as well as his official one. Trump argues a sitting president has immunity from personal capacity suits. But the courts are ruling against him on this. His pay to play administration is taking foreign money hand over fist. When Trump leaves he will have a large group of cases to deal with.