Is Joe sending Justice Roberts a message with his 90-day commission to study rebalancing the court?

[Yavin4]

The ACA will be heard and voted on by the SCOTUS by the time Biden's commission makes its recommendation. If SCOTUS rules that the ACA is unconstitutional, then Biden will ride the wave of anger and resentment which will expand the court.

Is Biden trying to tell Roberts that if you allow the ideologues to run amok, I have no choice but to expand the court. Democratic fence sitters like Joe Manchin will have to support expansion since his state will lose the Medicaid expansion.

West Virginia’s leaders opted to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) starting on January 1, 2014, providing coverage to low-income adults, most of whom have jobs but no option for employer-sponsored health insurance. The federal government paid the full cost for the expansion population for the first three years, but gradually reduced the funding split until reaching a 90/10 split in 2020, which will remain fixed in future years.

Under the expanded eligibility guidelines, adults age 19-64 are eligible for Medicaid with a household income up to 138 percent of the poverty level. Medicaid expansion significantly exceeded the 93,000 people that West Virginia had initially projected to enroll by 2020 under the expanded eligibility guidelines

https://www.healthinsurance.org/west-virginia-medicaid/

[roamer65]

1. Yes. But I don't think we should threaten.

Just kill the filibuster and pass the expansion through Congress.

[Bev54]

7. There is more than just nominating new Justices

discuss new term limits, how big to make the court, like 17 or 19 to be able to prevent this kind of nonsense ever happening again???

[roamer65]

13. Terms for the SC are set by the Constitution.

But the size of the court is a simple majority of Congress.

I don’t know on lower courts though.

[Bev54]

19. No terms are not set by the constitution

only that they sit on the courts for a lifetime appointment but it does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court. That is not in the constitution, it is an act of congress to decide.

[roamer65]

21. If so, by all means make the changes.

[Bev54]

22. Yes, they can go down to the federal courts

if they want.

[roamer65]

23. Double plus good.

[marie999]

25. Article III The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts

shall hold their offices during good behavior.

[dware]

30. Maybe you need to read Article lll of the Constitution.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Seems pretty clear that the SC and Fed. inferior courts do have lifetime appointments.

[Bev54]

34. Yes but it does not guarantee them a lifetime on the supreme court

they can have term limits and go back to the federal courts.

[dware]

36. It guarantees them holding their office during good behavior,

that means a lifetime appointment unless they either die, resign or are impeached, convicted and removed which just ain't going to happen.

Nope, the best course of action is to rebalance the courts by adding justices.

[Bev54]

38. It guarantees them a place on the federal courts

I agree they need to put more justices on the courts but they can instill term limits and they know that, otherwise they would not even be talking about it. I also think they should put in some requirements for the experience of those being nominated. They should not be putting on those that do not have the experience. I would like to see several more justices, so a couple or 3 appointments by one president does not change the balance of a court. Get the politics out and put people on that are constitutional judges, not of a particular political party.

[dware]

40. The Constitution would have to be amended to impose term limits, again,,

that pesky Article lll of the Constitution.

And just who in the Congress is talking about term limits?

[Bev54]

41. No not according to the experts

It is up to the congress

[dware]

43. No, term limits is not up to the Congress, that's false information.

There would have to be a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on SCJ's.

[Bev54]

45. Well we will have to agree to disagree

and will see. Why do you think they are even talking about it, they know the constitution.

[dware]

47. And just as many Constitutional Scholars, if not more, would disagree with these experts.

BTW, just who do you think would be ruling on the Constitutionality of such a law?

[Polybius]

56. It would be 9-0, no Justice will vote themselves off the court

But it would never even get that far. Isn't it laughable?

[dware]

61. It certainly is entertaining. nt

[dware]

37. And as far as moving them to another court, that's bullshit,

again, Article lll states that they shall hold their office during good behavior, that means that the SCJ's will hold the office they were confirmed to.

Here's another tidbit, just who do you think would rule on this?

[Bev54]

39. It is holding their office as a federal court judge

I am not an expert but I am going with what the experts say.

[dware]

42. No, Article lll says that the SC and inferior court shall hold their offices during good

behavior.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior

And there are just as many, if not more Constitutional Scholars who would agree that the language in Article lll means that SCJ's cannot be moved to a lower court unless the SCJ agreed to be moved which ain't likely.

[Marius25]

32. How does that work? Can a judge from SCOTUS be moved to another court?

[Bev54]

33. According to lawfare yes

There is no guarantee they will have a lifetime appointment on the supreme court, they can be moved. I listened to a podcast where they went into this.

[dware]

44. ...

This analysis is a proper construction of a portion of Article 1, Section 8. However, this section does not grant Congress the power to eliminate life tenure under Article III, Section 1 for Supreme Court Justices, that is, I contend, without amending the Constitution.

The Constitution does prescribe a method to terminate the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That method is impeachment.

Article III of the US Constitution created the Supreme Court and gave Justices and other federal judges a lifetime appointment. Section 1 states in part, “… The Judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior…

https://medium.com/@hmichaelharvey/can-congress-limit-life-terms-of-supreme-court-justices-without-amending-constitution-5ee1d18be420

[marie999]

52. No they can't and if Congress signed a bill stating that can be moved

and the president signs it the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional. And the only thing Congress can then do is try to amend the Constitution.

[Polybius]

55. That would be subject to a court case

Guess who has the final say? Yeah, I smell a 9-0 vote.

[sfstaxprep]

2. Roberts Has No Control Anymore

He was the swing vote. Now he is merely the 4th vote if he joins with the remaining liberal Justices.

[Mike Niendorff]

26. He can do exactly one thing:

Under 28 USC 1, 6 Justices are required for a quorum, the Court cannot conduct its business with only 5.

So the final hail Mary here would be for 4 Justices to refuse to participate in matters where the right-wing Justices are trying to run the Court off the rails.

That would require Roberts as well, though, and I can't for a moment imagine him doing it.

He could, but he 100% will not.

So for the record: the right-wing bloc can still be stopped.

But it won't be.

At least not by Roberts, which is all you need to know.


MDN

[sfstaxprep]

31. Yeah, Roberts Would Not Do That nt

[Polybius]

57. Not only will he not do that, he shouldn't

Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Conner, and Kennedy were in the minority in the late 80's. Before then it was Just Rehnquist and O'Conner. Should they have done this too? It creates a dangerous president. There's a reason this was never done, RBG never did it when there were 4 liberals for all of these years, and for good reason.

[Mike Niendorff]

60. If the fascists on the New Court are about to stop the vote count...

... then yes, he should do it.

This is an "in case of emergency break glass" scenario.

Its only effect would be to stop a judicially engineered coup, and even then, only long enough for the democratic process to play out so that legitimate elections can be concluded and a legitimate transition of leadership can take place without being suspended by 5 ultra-right-wing, unaccountable partisan zealots.

Again, no chance of it happening, but if ever there was a time to do it, this would be it.


MDN

[Bev54]

3. There is no need to wait until his inauguration

he needs to start that commission immediately, like Nov 4th. There is no law says he can't.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Really?

[Bev54]

9. Really what?

[elleng]

6. I suspect he will (if he hasn't yet.)

and working on EVERYTHING, as in TRANSITION.

[onetexan]

8. +1 -K&R

[BigmanPigman]

10. Can he do that?

[Bev54]

16. Why can't he?

They are putting together their policies along with interviewing people during the period between the election and inauguration, this would not be anything different.

[BigmanPigman]

18. Good!

[Polybius]

58. It's bad luck to count your chickens before they hatch

I'll never forget the fireworks that the 2016 had ready to go. Very bad luck.

[Blue Owl]

5. K&R

[servermsh]

11. We don't need a commission. Expand the court. End the filibuster. D.C. statehood n/t

[roamer65]

17. THIS.

The American people know that SC expansion is on the table. If we win the Senate, it means they have given us the mandate to do it.

[servermsh]

29. Then progressive policies are dead for a generation. n/t

[Boogiemack]

12. No. He's sending the country a message. nt

[rso]

14. Scotus

Forget the “Commission”, if you have enough votes in the Senate, just proceed with the expansion of the Court.

[roamer65]

20. Kill the filibuster the first day of a new Senate.

GONE.

Then proceed with all the changes the American people have given us the mandate to make.

[shanti]

48. Aren't there about

500 House passed bills sitting on McConnell's desk that he hasn't touched? That's a start.

[roamer65]

49. Yup.

[GoCubsGo]

15. No. It's a response to Trump's accusations of him planning to pack the courts.

Which is kind of hard for Biden to do, as Trump already has them packed.

[Staph]

24. Posted two hours ago on Manchin's Facebook page - he's pissed!

Today the Senate took unprecedented action never before seen in the 240 year history of our country, but it didn’t have to be this way. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans chose a dangerous, partisan path to push through the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett eight days before this year’s November 3rd election further politicizing the highest court in the land. The facts are clear—never before has the president nominated and the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice between July and Election Day in a presidential election year.

This degradation of Senate norms and procedures didn’t start with the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and it won’t end here. The U.S. Senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world and perhaps we used to be. But each time a Senate majority – regardless of party – changes the rules, we reduce the incentive to work together across party lines. Instead, the partisan governing of the last ten years and the rushed nomination of Judge Barrett only fans the flames of division at a time when Americans are deeply divided. Judge Barrett’s nomination and the confirmation process are far from business as usual. I cannot support the nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States on the eve of a Presidential election. It is simple - this nomination should have waited until after the election.

[Blue_true]

28. Some people here believe that Biden is doing the wrong thing with the commission.

I believe that he is making a brilliant tactical move. Americans have to get to the point where they feel that the Courts need to be reformed. So Biden picks some former Federal Judges that took a balanced judicial approach and set the groundwork for expanding an out of balance Federal Court system.

[krawhitham]

50. Agree, it pushes issue past election, looks good that we "investgated it" but he's going to stack it

He already knows he has to do it. But he also needs some republicans votes to win first

Yeah I know, a lot around here think we don't need republican help. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't but his bean counters feel he does

[Blue_true]

51. The few sane republicans that there are left, I believe, understand that there is no choice

but to reform the Federal Courts after what Susan Sarandon, Trump and Mitch McConnell have done. I honestly don’t Biden scares them by saying he will reform the Courts, maybe if he said that he was going to swing them far Left, but given his philosophy, my guess is the Courts would end up just Left of Center, enough to protect critical societal gains that Trump, McConnell and the religious right are trying to destroy.

[KentuckyWoman]

35. Maybe. But Biden is serious.

Biden intends to have the Executive do the Constitutional job of putting the Judiciary back in balance. Biden won't play golf instead of doing his job. Party time is over.

[krawhitham]

46. No, he's buying time

Some republicans will not vote against turd if they know Joe will increase the court

it's a gimmick to push the court stacking debate past election day. (and the commission's report will look good for history)


As for the ACA, it is supper easy to fix if we win the Senate back. You reinstate the mandate and set the penalty to just 1 dollar

[marie999]

53. How would Congress get around Article III of the Constitution.

Anything they try would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Then the only thing Congress could try would be an amendment to the Constitution.

[Polybius]

59. They can try, but getting to 67 votes is unreachable

Even if they got there, getting to a 3/4th majority of the states would be next to impossible.

[Polybius]

54. When you're the Chief Justice of the USSC, no one can send you a message

Liberal majority of 7-6 or not, he's still the Chief. He also doesn't "allow the ideologues" to do things. They are free to vote how they choose.