Term Limits and a Binding #Ethics Code Can Save the #SupremeCourt from Itself
Michael Waldman #scotus
..."The Supreme Court has vast power and minimal accountability. Public trust has plunged to the lowest level ever recorded. The Court is mired in corruption controversies. And the Trump v. United States ruling giving presidents broad immunity will sanction executive lawbreaking on an unprecedented scale.
Biden backed 18-year term limits for justices,"...
No these paltry changes cannot "save" the #SCOTUS
You know what can?
President #Biden acting like #Lincoln and issuing a Proclamation and Executive Order that the radical six on the Court violated article 3 of the 14th Amendment TWICE in aiding and abetting an Adjudicated Insurrectionist (#Trump) and in that moment ceased being Justices.
Order #DOJ and #IRS to investigate and prosecute their other crimes.
Send six new names to the #Senate for confirmation.
That is how.,
It wouldn't change anything, though. Short of impeachment and removal of those justices the Court would remain the same.
No. It wouldn't remain the same. They would be off the court, and six new me,bers seated. No impeachment required. They removed themselves.
@samohTmaS they wouldn't be off the court, though. That's not the rules of how the US government functions.
And for good reason, this is part of having an independent judiciary.
We require impeachment to take someone off the court because we don't want presidents to be able to threaten justices to get their way. That's part of protecting against a president going way overboard and threatening the country.
It requires impeachment to take a Justice off the court. It requires that our elected representatives agree that the justice should no longer serve.
We don't leave that decision up to a president to dictate.
Yes they actually would be off the #SCOTUS. The 14th amendment mandates that they may not be officers of the United States.
As part of the proclamation and executive order the President would order that the Treasury NOT pay them any longer, and that the Federal Marshals service physically prevent them from trespassing on Court property.
Impeachment is NOT required.
The President as the chief law enforcement officer and head of the Executive can do this.
@samohTmaS again, your interpretation is absolutely ridiculous if nothing else because it would allow any president, including Donald Trump, to dismiss any justice that didn't cooperate with him.
No, that's not how the US government works. That's not how any of this works.
And it's for excellent reason that the US government doesn't operate the way you're talking about, otherwise presidents have unilateral control over the courts, which absolutely violates the independence of the judicial branch.
No, you're just wrong here.
If we accept your interpretation, the #SCOTUS is entirely unaccountable. And major sections of the #Constitution become wholly imoperative.
The nations founders always envisioned the three branches as checks and balances upon one another.
Mostly that has worked, though not always well.
But it wasn't until the extreme packing of the courts by McConnell and Trump with extremist zealots who rip up the laws AND the #Constitution that we git into real trouble necessitating the sorts of actions the founders envisioned.
@volkris @libramoon
No. It doesn't.
It is only operative when a Justice acts to aid and abet an adjudicated insurrectionist.
We have only had twi times in our history that has happened.
First when all 9 Justices shredded the 14th in Colorado v. Trump.
Second when 6 Justices shredded the Constitution and created a fictional immunity to aid Trump.
Arguably a third time with Thomas interfering in the Florida case.
It is you who is wrong.
And the backstop is impeachment by the Congress