USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

> Biden Illegally Commands the CDC to Ignore SCOTUS

Joe "Mr. Unconstitutional" Biden, and hypocrite of record,
gets slammed on SCOTUS packing by his own handpicked
anti-constitutional "supreme court commission" that was
tasked off the record with finding ways to fuck the court
and thereby the country within his illegitimate trifecta term.
And someone on the panel was swinging some immense
OG American constutional balls around trying to keep
the fuckery from happening...


Biden Supreme Court Commission Appears To Reject Court-Packing, Favor
Term-Limits

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-supreme-court-commission-divided-on-adding-justices-to-supreme-court_4050647.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21085593-membership-and-size-of-the-court_

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats-are-considering-expanding-the-supreme-court-they-dont-like-the-last-three-justices-speaker-pelosi_4001333.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/liberals-divided-on-court-packing-following-texas-abortion-law-decision_3980890.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/leading-gop-senators-court-packing-proposal-would-destroy-judicial-independence_3788203.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-ag-urges-states-democratic-senators-to-oppose-court-packing-proposal_3785014.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-commission-on-changes-to-supreme-court_3769238.html

President Joe Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court issued draft
documents Thursday showing members are divided on the question of
whether to add seats to the nation’s top court.

The commission spent 30 pages, with another 16 in footnotes, exploring
the issue. More words were devoted to the potential ramifications than
the potential benefits.

While some commissioners agree, at least in part, with critics who
want the court expanded, others conclude that “Court expansion is
likely to undermine, rather than enhance, the Supreme Court’s
legitimacy and its role in the constitutional system, and there are
significant reasons to be skeptical that expansion would serve
democratic values,” the commission said.

Some Democrats have pushed to add seats to the nine-judge court,
infuriated by Senate Republicans refusing to hold a vote in 2016 on
then-President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. They’ve also
accused the court, which currently has six justices appointed by
Republicans, of ruling incorrectly on a number of matters.

The calls have “been fueled by Democrats’ concerns that an
increasingly conservative court presents a threat to the progressive
conception of the Constitution across a range of issues, including
firearms, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, health
care, climate change, and affirmative action,” the commissioners said.

The arguments have received pushback. Supporters of the court’s
current size note then-Sen. Biden said in 1992 that the president at
the time, President George H.W. Bush, should not name a nominee
because it was an election year. He also said the Senate should not
hold a vote if Bush did nominate a justice.

Additionally, they say, the court’s composition is a result of
Republican presidents and senators winning elections—and the timing of
vacancies—and the rulings reflect the GOP’s leaning toward trying to
interpret the Constitution as it was fixed at the time of its
inception, versus Democrats’ tendency toward a “living
interpretation.”

Republicans’ choice not to take up Garland’s nomination—and to take up
then-President Donald Trump’s nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
in 2020, another election year—was within congressional rules, the
commission acknowledged.

Congress does legally have the power to expand or contract justices,
both sides agree. But there’s widespread disagreement on expanding the
court, as the commission detailed.

    “The risks of court expansion are considerable, including that it
could undermine the very goal of some of its proponents of restoring
the court’s legitimacy. Recent polls suggest that a majority of the
public does not support court expansion. And as even some supporters
of Court expansion acknowledged during the commission’s public
hearings, the reform—at least if it were done in the near term and all
at once—would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver,”
commissioners said.

On the other hand, expansion might “benefit the Supreme Court’s public
reputation” in part because it would let a president “select
individuals who reflect the rich diversity of the nation, that is, the
wide range of characteristics and backgrounds that can enrich
discussion and decision making—gender, race, ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, gender identity, educational and professional
background, and geographic origin,” they said.

    “Decisions by a more diverse judiciary might be more informed; for
example, the Court’s deliberations in criminal cases could be enhanced
by the perspective of a Justice with a background in criminal
defense,” they wrote.

While an unspecified number of commissioners oppose expanding the
court, an unspecified number “believe that the nation has reached (or
is on the verge of)” the end of American democracy, they added later.

Commissioners appeared more favorable to arguments for setting term
limits for justices or rotating judges between the Supreme Court and
lower courts.

A number of scholars have endorsed tenure limits and a look at
published works on the subject “discovered few works arguing against
term limits,” the commission said, adding that the United States is
the “only major constitutional democracy in the world that has neither
a retirement age nor a fixed term of years for its high court
Justices.”

The commission is set to issue a final report on Friday.

Biden established the panel in April. His executive order says it was
meant to put forth a history of the role of the Supreme Court,
including an account of “contemporary commentary and debate” about
that role, and an analysis of the leading arguments for and against
adding seats.

Commissioners include Michelle Adams, a law professor at the Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law; Bob Bauer, a professor at the New York
University School of Law; Andrew Manuel Crespo, a law professor at
Harvard University; and Caroline Fredrickson, a senior fellow at the
Brennan Center for Justice.