The Supremes

[Keef 764]

21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes:

Hell yeah. Fuck em up, Joe.

Sure, but it also makes me angry that he's just now doing it to try and save his hide. This problem has existed throughout his presidency.

[Dnaguy 11916]

22 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes:

Hell yeah. Fuck em up, Joe.

Great. I’m sure congress in an election year will get right on that.

Especially with the Republican Party expecting to be in power in all 3 branches of government after.

And maybe I get to have a 3 way with Katy Perry and Sydney Sweeney. 

🤷🏼‍♂️

[wildcat09 29344]

Y’all could try reading the article.

[Satchel 6925]

25 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Great. I’m sure congress in an election year will get right on that.

Especially with the Republican Party expecting to be in power in all 3 branches of government after.

And maybe I get to have a 3 way with Katy Perry and Sydney Sweeney. 

🤷🏼‍♂️

Chuckle, the Republican Party will not be in control of all 3 branches of government. Stop with that foolishness.

[sheeeit 129]

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

Your last paragraph sums it up.  Where there is vagueness or ambiguity in the statute enabling the regulations, the agency's interpretation usually, but not always, prevailed.  Which allowed the agency more leeway to enact "partisan" or "administration-specific" regulations.

The term for that under Chevron was deference to the agency interpretation.  Deference, not acquiescence.  Between determining if a statute is vague or ambiguous and what the hell is deference, there was a lot of Calvinball going on.  Calvinball will continue, but a bit less tilted toward the agency and the administration dictating its policies.

In this realm, the Major Questions doctrine, where the courts get to say Congress just can't delegate that issue to an agency because reasons is the big one.  That's the one where agency expertise is actually endangered in favor of congressional incompetence and gridlock.

Edited July 18 by TwiceHorn

[Horn Dog 9816]

7 hours ago, Satchel said:

Chuckle, the Republican Party will not be in control of all 3 branches of government. Stop with that foolishness.

In this simulation foolishness is kinda the rule unfortunately (but i pray you’re right)

[SKJ 1311]

4 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Your last paragraph sums it up.  Where there is vagueness or ambiguity in the statute enabling the regulations, the agency's interpretation usually, but not always, prevailed.  Which allowed the agency more leeway to enact "partisan" or "administration-specific" regulations.

The term for that under Chevron was deference to the agency interpretation.  Deference, not acquiescence.  Between determining if a statute is vague or ambiguous and what the hell is deference, there was a lot of Calvinball going on.  Calvinball will continue, but a bit less tilted toward the agency and the administration dictating its policies.

In this realm, the Major Questions doctrine, where the courts get to say Congress just can't delegate that issue to an agency because reasons is the big one.  That's the one where agency expertise is actually endangered in favor of congressional incompetence and gridlock.

So,  what your kinda saying is that Loper is kinda like promissory estoppel,  and the major questions doctrine is horseshit?

Because that's probably the most accurate description

[tx 3 putt 76868]

 

 

[Captainant 27627]

https://www.wuky.org/local-regional-news/2024-07-24/kim-davis-legal-team-pushes-to-overturn-obergefell-citing-dobbs-decision

Gotta love building on the precedent of "ain't no precedent, BITCH!"

Edited July 25 by Captainant

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

yo, is this a real fucking headline?

I know it's OHSC. I put it in here bc where else do you put it?

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

They don’t even have to be chicken bones. 

[Horn Dog 9816]

[F250 28764]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

yo, is this a real fucking headline?

I know it's OHSC. I put it in here bc where else do you put it?

 

Wut?

Quote

“A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers,” Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.

 

[jimmyjazz 45884]

WTF?  How could "boneless" mean anything other than "lacking bones"?  In what world is that a "cooking style" and not a description of the ingredients of the dish (or more specifically, an "ingredient" the dish lacks)?

I'm sure some lawyer can explain it to me.

[SaucyJack 3488]

It’s ohio

[Doc Sam Beckett 5792]

I just realized that I don't care if Icono or Helobious  catch a random bone in their chicken wings. Am I Maga? 

[tx 3 putt 76868]

 

[CooterBrown 18003]

Prepare your anus, Clarence and Sammy.

He’s coming for you bitches.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21872]

Wouldn’t term limits for the Supremes also require an amendment?  I think I would be wary of any momentum to start amending the constitution during this particular simulation 

[CooterBrown 18003]

Wouldn’t term limits for the Supremes also require an amendment?  I think I would be wary of any momentum to start amending the constitution during this particular simulation 

It’s honestly the perfect stuff to bring up before the election. Most voters believe in term limits and a code of ethics for judges and don’t believe in unlimited immunity for the president. Arguing against any of this won’t win you any swing voters. Make them argue against it for the sake of arguing against the Dems and dig that hole deeper.

[elfenix 34223]

On 7/25/2024 at 10:54 PM, jimmyjazz said:

WTF?  How could "boneless" mean anything other than "lacking bones"?  In what world is that a "cooking style" and not a description of the ingredients of the dish (or more specifically, an "ingredient" the dish lacks)?

I'm sure some lawyer can explain it to me.

it's not "does boneless mean lacking bones," it's "is boneless a legally enforceable warranty?"

[Nivek 16917]

It’s honestly the perfect stuff to bring up before the election. Most voters believe in term limits and a code of ethics for judges and don’t believe in unlimited immunity for the president. Arguing against any of this won’t win you any swing voters. Make them argue against it for the sake of arguing against the Dems and dig that hole deeper.

The problem is that voters like neat little jingles to define our views. If it is longer than 3-8 words, our attention span gives way to a Facebook like or whatever.

This is why Rs win, they have better messaging, even if their messages are horrible.

[tx 3 putt 76868]

No judge should be appointed for life and they should be held to a much higher code of ethics 

[F250 28764]

On 7/27/2024 at 12:31 PM, elfenix said:

it's not "does boneless mean lacking bones," it's "is boneless a legally enforceable warranty?"

In that case, I have some "dickless" pizza for you.

[Satchel 6925]

The architect of the Leo Court, Leonard Leo, is big mad about Biden’s proposals:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3102762/leonard-leo-biden-supreme-court-reforms-apply-congress-too/#

In a statement, Leo said if Biden and Democrats were “truly serious” about ethics reform, they would call for bans on “all gifts and hospitality of any kind to any public official in any branch of government,” including Congress, where he said “the real corruption is.”

“Let me be clear: If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I am in favor of that: no jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let’s all be honest about what this is: a campaign to destroy a court that they disagree with,” Leo said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner.

[Js1 85272]

Cool, I’m about that! 

[wildcat09 29344]

Those already exist for members of Congress, but sure we can probably tighten them up.  The only problem is that this SCOTUS will say they're unconstitutional, so I guess Dems will also need to do something to fix that.

[tx 3 putt 76868]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

The architect of the Leo Court, Leonard Leo, is big mad about Biden’s proposals:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3102762/leonard-leo-biden-supreme-court-reforms-apply-congress-too/#

 

In a statement, Leo said if Biden and Democrats were “truly serious” about ethics reform, they would call for bans on “all gifts and hospitality of any kind to any public official in any branch of government,” including Congress, where he said “the real corruption is.”

“Let me be clear: If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I am in favor of that: no jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let’s all be honest about what this is: a campaign to destroy a court that they disagree with,” Leo said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner.

[tx 3 putt 76868]

[Biff Tannen 45664]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

The architect of the Leo Court, Leonard Leo, is big mad about Biden’s proposals:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3102762/leonard-leo-biden-supreme-court-reforms-apply-congress-too/#

 

In a statement, Leo said if Biden and Democrats were “truly serious” about ethics reform, they would call for bans on “all gifts and hospitality of any kind to any public official in any branch of government,” including Congress, where he said “the real corruption is.”

“Let me be clear: If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I am in favor of that: no jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let’s all be honest about what this is: a campaign to destroy a court that they disagree with,” Leo said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Neat.  That guy needs to shuffle off this mortal coil.  Unfortunately, he's only 59.  Seriously, he's an evil fuck on the same level as Murdoch, Cheney, and Stephen Miller.

[chainsaw 9857]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Cool, now all the house republicans have to campaign on maintaining a corrupt rights-taking SCOTUS

[Francisco 2.0 32386]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-rocked-by-new-leak-on-bitter-split-over-idaho-emergency-abortion-ruling?ref=home?ref=home

 

Quote

The Supreme Court has been hit by a new damaging leak over its abortion decisions in a fresh blow to its embattled reputation—and a hint of even more leaks to come.

Intimate details of months of disagreement among the nine justices were reported at length by CNN Monday, just hours after President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both backed major reforms to the court, with the president accusing justices of being “above the law.” CNN also said its report was the first of a series, suggesting more leaks ahead.

 

Quote

The leak to CNN comes a little more than two years after the court was rocked by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s entire opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Ironically, the court itself accidentally published the opinion on abortion accessin Idaho in June this year, a day before it was formally announced.

The justices are likely to be extremely concerned at the level of detail CNN has obtained about their internal divisions over the case Moyle v. United States. It was prompted by Idaho introducing an extreme abortion ban in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which would have criminalized doctors performing abortions under any circumstances. That move prompted the federal government to introduce formal guidance that hospitals receiving federal Medicare funding had to offer emergency abortions—which Idaho’s Republican attorney general tried to challenge.

 

Quote

Initially Idaho had the case taken up as an emergency by the Supreme Court and got an emergency stay of the federal Medicare move in January on the court’s so-called “shadow docket.”

CNN revealed Monday that the stay was issued 6-3, splitting along ideological lines, a split which had never been known before and should be a secret.

 

Spoiler

But that split was then followed by sixth months of fracturing among the conservative justices, the outlet revealed. Among the leaked facts were that after a public hearing on the case in April, the justices’ private vote revealed no clear majority for resolution. Private votes of the justices are considered one of the court’s most closely guarded secrets.

Conservatives John Roberts, the chief justice, and Brett Kavanaugh both “expressed an openness to ending the case without resolving it,” CNN reported.

The leak also reveals that Roberts then abandoned normal protocol and did not assign the writing of the majority decision to any of the justices, leading to months of negotiations.

Instead he, Kavanaugh and conservative Amy Coney Barrett worked on an opinion which would call the case “improvidently granted,” a rare move to essentially admit that the court should never have taken it up.

But CNN reveals that the other conservatives—Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—argued from April until June that Idaho should have its abortion ban upheld. Alito was described as “adamant” that the Biden administration was in the wrong, CNN said.

The report reveals that Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were then offered a compromise in “negotiations” with liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, which was eventually what prevailed: a ruling not that the court had made a mistake in taking the case, but that Idaho had not shown “irreparable harm” by the Supreme Court setting aside its emergency stay of the federal guidelines. The liberals accepted, leading to the June ruling.

Such a lengthy and extensive leak of internal disagreements and the specifics of procedures and draft opinions are likely to cause extreme concern inside the court and particularly for Roberts. A lengthy probe into the 2022 Roe v. Wadeleak— called “appalling” by Roberts—saw U.S. Marshals demand access to clerks’ private texts and emails but did not find a culprit.

The Daily Beast has reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.

 

[Da Fino 2773]

 

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-rocked-by-new-leak-on-bitter-split-over-idaho-emergency-abortion-ruling?ref=home?ref=home

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But that split was then followed by sixth months of fracturing among the conservative justices, the outlet revealed. Among the leaked facts were that after a public hearing on the case in April, the justices’ private vote revealed no clear majority for resolution. Private votes of the justices are considered one of the court’s most closely guarded secrets.

Conservatives John Roberts, the chief justice, and Brett Kavanaugh both “expressed an openness to ending the case without resolving it,” CNN reported.

The leak also reveals that Roberts then abandoned normal protocol and did not assign the writing of the majority decision to any of the justices, leading to months of negotiations.

Instead he, Kavanaugh and conservative Amy Coney Barrett worked on an opinion which would call the case “improvidently granted,” a rare move to essentially admit that the court should never have taken it up.

But CNN reveals that the other conservatives—Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—argued from April until June that Idaho should have its abortion ban upheld. Alito was described as “adamant” that the Biden administration was in the wrong, CNN said.

The report reveals that Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were then offered a compromise in “negotiations” with liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, which was eventually what prevailed: a ruling not that the court had made a mistake in taking the case, but that Idaho had not shown “irreparable harm” by the Supreme Court setting aside its emergency stay of the federal guidelines. The liberals accepted, leading to the June ruling.

Such a lengthy and extensive leak of internal disagreements and the specifics of procedures and draft opinions are likely to cause extreme concern inside the court and particularly for Roberts. A lengthy probe into the 2022 Roe v. Wadeleak— called “appalling” by Roberts—saw U.S. Marshals demand access to clerks’ private texts and emails but did not find a culprit.

The Daily Beast has reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.

 

Alito “

/“ Alito

[Fudge Nuggets 19188]

5 hours ago, Js1 said:

Cool, I’m about that! 

 

[Satchel 6925]

Included in Kamala’s first 100 days should be a plan to get 13 justices for 13 circuits. If we don’t, P2025 will .

[landman 559]

Term limits across the board would be nice.  But nothing mentioned about Congress.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

7 hours ago, Satchel said:

The architect of the Leo Court, Leonard Leo, is big mad about Biden’s proposals:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3102762/leonard-leo-biden-supreme-court-reforms-apply-congress-too/#

 

In a statement, Leo said if Biden and Democrats were “truly serious” about ethics reform, they would call for bans on “all gifts and hospitality of any kind to any public official in any branch of government,” including Congress, where he said “the real corruption is.”

“Let me be clear: If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I am in favor of that: no jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let’s all be honest about what this is: a campaign to destroy a court that they disagree with,” Leo said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner.

If he can’t funnel dark money to buy off judges then we’re just not the same democracy George Washington founded. 
 

“We can’t solve corruption on the Court, until we take on some separate issue that will be harder to get consensus on”

[Biff Tannen 45664]

59 minutes ago, landman said:

Term limits across the board would be nice.  But nothing mentioned about Congress.

I see it as getting the conversation started.  Of course nothing will happen for a long while, but the more people talk, the more it creeps into the mainstream.

[tx 3 putt 76868]

 

[CooterBrown 18003]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

Included in Kamala’s first 100 days should be a plan to get 13 justices for 13 circuits. If we don’t, P2025 will .

Dark Brandon is doing that the 2nd week of November.  

[Js1 85272]

9 hours ago, landman said:

Term limits across the board would be nice.  But nothing mentioned about Congress.

Congress has term limits already - they're accountable to voters every 2/6 years.  Voters can choose to dump them. 

SCOTUS is accountable to nobody. 

[landman 559]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Congress has term limits already - they're accountable to voters every 2/6 years.  Voters can choose to dump them. 

SCOTUS is accountable to nobody. 

Correct to an extent.  Voters can make that choice.  But when Congress has the ability to become entrenched and get the big money behind them, it becomes a lot harder for opponents to unseat them.  It does happen, but not often enough.  Ted Cruz will continue to be elected as long as he runs. Voter apathy has a lot to do with it.

[Nivek 16917]

Correct to an extent.  Voters can make that choice.  But when Congress has the ability to become entrenched and get the big money behind them, it becomes a lot harder for opponents to unseat them.  It does happen, but not often enough.  Ted Cruz will continue to be elected as long as he runs. Voter apathy has a lot to do with it.

The corporate ownership won’t change with term limits. Only good governance and a moment of clarity for American voters can unfuck this. So never.

[Js1 85272]

Just now, Nivek said:

The corporate ownership won’t change with term limits. Only good governance and a moment of clarity for American voters can unfuck this. So never.

It will only be worse. 

[WithoutAClue 15337]

[Dutchrudder 11133]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

And a Senator from New Jersey was just convicted of taking bribes, and will lose his job over it. Yet Clarence gets to keep on with his role as 1 of the 9 deciders of law.

[wildcat09 29344]

11 hours ago, landman said:

Term limits across the board would be nice.  But nothing mentioned about Congress.

Congress is accountable to the people. The Supreme Court is not.

ETA: I see this has been covered already. As to the idea that term limits would make Congress more accountable, it's actually the opposite:

Quote

One of the important effects of term limits is that they increase legislative polarization. As Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski report, term limits reduce the value of holding office and increase the influence of legislative parties. Legislatures become more ideologically polarized when term limits are in effect.

Boris Shor and I did a study of the Nebraska Unicam that confirmed these effects. In that state, term limits gutted the legislature in the mid-2000s, leaving more than half the seats open when they went into effect. The parties responded rationally by recruiting people to run for those seats, and the people they recruited were far more ideologically motivated than those they were replacing. Even in an officially nonpartisan legislature, term limits sharply increased polarization.

Another important effect of term limits is to reduce legislators' expertise and capacity, as nicely described in this Brookings study. If you can only serve for six or eight years, chances are you don't get particularly good at some of the key tasks of legislating -- writing a budget, crafting large bipartisan bills, understanding the executive branch well enough to provide competent oversight, etc. -- before you get kicked out. Often legislative leaders have only a few years of experience before they take over the chamber.

This inexperience and lowered capacity tends to make legislatures weaker relative to the governor's office. Under term limits, California legislators, according to Bruce Cain and Thad Kousser, are less likely to screen bills or alter the governor's budget proposals. As they argue, "For a variety of reasons related to term limits, there is more room for fiscal irresponsibility in the Legislature now and less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it." This weakness also means that legislators are more subject to the influence of lobbyists, who are not term limited and can develop a lifetime of expertise on a subject. 

Some more findings suggest that term limits generally fail to achieve what their advocates promise. That is, they have not reduced campaign spending. They have not, as Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins noted, increased the number of women serving in office. Nor have they increased the overall representativeness or diversity of legislatures. 

Interestingly, term limits don't even seem to limit time in office all that much. Jordan Butcher and Aaron Kushner tracked the careers of thousands of state legislators over many years. What they found was that, on average, legislators in term-limited states stay in office longer; they're more likely to finish out the full time for which they're eligible. 

The overall summary of the literature is that term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals. As Kris Kanthak noted at a recent conference, the reason more political scientists aren't on line criticizing term limits is because our literature on this topic is about as close to a consensus as we get, and there just isn't much of a percentage in writing on a solved problem.

Probably the best one can say about term limits is that they really do limit terms. Unlike many political reforms, this one isn't something you can get around. Even very powerful, well-entrenched legislative leaders lose their seats because of it. The question is whether that makes the political system better as a result, and it's really hard to answer that in the affirmative.

If you're not interested in the results and you just simply don't like experienced politicians, well then yes, term limits may be just the thing you're looking for. But if good governance is something you care about, it's hard to make the case that term limits will get you there.

 

Edited July 30 by wildcat09

[Nivek 16917]

And a Senator from New Jersey was just convicted of taking bribes, and will lose his job over it. Yet Clarence gets to keep on with his role as 1 of the 9 deciders of law.

Alito is also a bribe taker, IIRC.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

Major question for the kill.  https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-blocks-biden-administration-net-neutrality-rules-2024-08-01/

Much bigger deal than no Chevron, imo.