#term limits

[politijohn]

Source | Dec 21

Gerontocracy, baby

[justinspoliticalcorner]

President Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court reforms

Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer at WaPo:

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers. Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. [...]

Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures. The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

[...] Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.

Good News! President Joe Biden set to endorse major reforms to SCOTUS, such as term limits and an ethics code with actual teeth.

[thashining]

Missing congresswoman with dementia doesn’t even break the top ten of political stories of 2024.

"They will do literally ANYTHING but retire"

"This is the strongest evidence that term limit must become a thing'

@pearlmania500

[relaxedstyles]

[dosesofcommonsense]

That’s like employees of a failing business voting to raise their salaries, improve their benefits, increase their days off, and make it all lifetime.

Congress represents US. We pay for their salaries. We determine those things, NOT THEM.

[deadpresidents]

What if the only hope I’m clinging to right now is that he can’t ever run again after this term? Is that hope even safe? Could he change everything to make himself president for the rest of his life?

Part of me hopes that they do amend the Constitution to eliminate Presidential term limits and then Barack Obama (who is 15 years younger than Trump, by the way) comes back and beats the brakes off of him in 2028.

I don't think that there is enough support to actually eliminate term limits, though. It's really difficult to amend the Constitution and that's what would have to happen. Despite the subservient personality cult that has been installed in Congress to help further the aims of the MAGA movement, I don't see a realistic path to repeal or change the 22nd Amendment.

Could he simply ignore the law and try to continue to hold on to power? Well, considering what we've seen from him in the past and already in this second term I can't see how we can rule anything out. That's what happens when a country elects unfit and untrustworthy leaders who openly speak of absolute power and admire authoritarianism. Because ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. And, this time, there are NO guardrails, NO "adults in the room", NO General Milley or Rex Tillerson or John Kelly or General Mattis, or...fuck...even a John Bolton or William Barr. This time around, Trump has an entire Executive Branch full of people fully invested in letting him do what he wants. He also has a Legislative majority willing to support and amplify those urges, and a Judiciary that seems uninterested in challenging him. No matter how hard you search through the federal government, you will not be able to find a check or balance anywhere in the District of Columbia right now.

Trump is shaping the federal government to serve him. You know, it's almost like there was a playbook that the MAGA movement is working from, as if they planned out what they would do if they took back power in 2025 and are using it as a blueprint for systematically dismantling the federal government and rolling back protections for people who don't look like them.

[davidaugust]

“I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment.”

“I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.”

“I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.”

Yes please.

Gift link to President Biden’s proposal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzIyMjI1NjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzIzNjA3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MjIyMjU2MDAsImp0aSI6IjI5ODkwY2VjLTYwZTItNDZmZi1hOWZkLWQwOTJjZmI5MGNjMSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI0LzA3LzI5L2pvZS1iaWRlbi1yZWZvcm0tc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydC1wcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwtaW1tdW5pdHktcGxhbi1hbm5vdW5jZW1lbnQvIn0.ZjQ4R9u8pwlIKd0l230VD0f20mb0V140Kw3gTFopyfM

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What Americans want

Tomorrow (Oct 19), I'm in Charleston, WV to give the 41st annual McCreight Lecture in the Humanities. And on Friday (Oct 20), I'm at Charleston's Taylor Books from 12h-14h.

If you aspire to be a Very Serious Person (and whomst amongst us doesn't?) then you know why we can't have nice things. The American people won't stand for court packing, Congressional term limits, the abolition of the Electoral College, or campaign finance limits. Politics is the art of the possible, and these just aren't possible.

Friends, you've been lied to.

The latest Pew Research mega-report investigates Americans' attitudes towards politics, and honestly, the title says it all: "Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics":

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/

The American people hate Congress. They hate the parties. They hate the president. They hate the 2024 presidential candidates. They loathe the Supreme Court. Approval for America's bedrock institutions are at historic lows. Disapprovals are at historic highs.

The report's subtitle speaks volumes: "65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics." Who can blame them? After all: "63% express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system."

"Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well": that is to say, there are more Americans who think Elvis is alive than who think US politics are working well.

There are differences, of course. Young people have less hope than older people. Republicans are more reactionary than Democrats. Racialized people trust institutions less than white people.

But there are also broad, bipartisan, cross-demographic, intergenerational agreements, and these may surprise you:

Take Congressional term-limits. 87% of US adults support these. Only 12% oppose them.

Everyone knows American gerontocracy is a problem. I mean, for one thing, it's destabilizing. There's a significant chance that neither of the presumptive US presidential candidates will be alive on inauguration day:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/01/designated-survivors/

But beyond the inexorable logic of actuarial science, there's the problem that our Congress of septuagenarians have served for decades, and are palpably out-of-touch with their constituents' lives. And those constituents know it, which is why 79% of Americans favor age limits for elected officials and Supreme Court justices:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-proposals-to-change-the-political-system/

Not all of this bipartisan agreement is positive. 76% of Americans have been duped into favoring a voter ID requirement to solve the nonexistent problem of voter fraud by imposing a racialized, wealth-based poll-tax. But even here, there's a silver lining: 62% of American support automatically registering every eligible voter.

Threats to pack the Supreme Court have a long and honorable tradition in this country. It's how Lincoln got his antislavery agenda, and how FDR got the New Deal:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The majority of Americans don't want to pack the court…yet. The race is currently neck-and-neck – 51% opposed, 46% in favor, and with approval for the Supreme Court at lows not seen since the 2400 baud era, court-packing is an idea with serious momentum:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-fall-to-historic-low/

66% of Democrats want the court packed. 58% of under 30s – of every affiliation – favor the proposal.

And two thirds (65%) of Americans want to abolish the Electoral College and award the presidency to the candidate with the most votes. That includes nearly half (47%) of Republicans, and two thirds of independents.

Americans believe – correctly – that their elected representatives are more beholden to monied interests than to a sense of duty towards their constituents. Or, as a pair of political scientists put it in their widely cited 2014 paper:

Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

So yeah, no surprise that 70% of Americans believe that voters have too little influence over their elected lawmakers. 83% of Republicans say big campaign donors call the shots. 80% of Democrats agree.

Which is why 72% of Americans want to limit political spending (76% for Democrats, 71% for Republicans). The majority of Americans – 58% – believe that it is possible to get money out of politics with well-crafted laws.

Americans truly do have a "dismal view of the nation's politics," and who can blame them? But if you "feel exhausted thinking about the nation's politics," consider this – the majority of Americans, including Republicans, want to:

abolish the electoral college;

impose campaign spending limits;

put term limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices;

put age limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices; and

automatically register every eligible American to vote.

What's more, packing the Supreme Court is a coin-toss, and it's growing more popular day by day.

Which is all to say, yes, things are really screwed up, but everyone knows it and everyone agrees on the commonsense measures that would fix it.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[smashing-yng-man]

The United States government needs more term limits than ever. Trump will have to die from sociopathy, Diet Coke, and McDonald's otherwise.

[ahamay79]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michael Tomasky at TNR:

Last Thursday, while his henchmen were busy selling out Ukraine and Elon Musk was hoisting that chainsaw at CPAC, Donald Trump spoke to the Republican Governors’ Association. He bragged about how much money he’d raised. He talked about helping other candidates. Then he got to the point: “So we’ve got that money, and I got to spend it somewhere, and they tell me I’m not allowed to run,” Trump said. “I’m not sure. Is that true? I’m not sure.” This was at least the fourth time Trump has “joked” about running again since he returned to the White House—that is, in the last month or so. He did it at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6. Also at an event in Las Vegas in late January. And during a speech in Mar-a-Lago. On top of these, there was the “joke” the White House posted on social media, apropos of Trump’s attempt to kill congestion pricing in New York, that showed him wearing a crown with the all-caps message “LONG LIVE THE KING!” When this comes up on cable news, the host typically asks the guests whether Trump is just trolling the libs or should be taken seriously. It’s a silly question, because the answer is obviously both. He’s always trolling. But if you’ve watched these first four weeks and think he’s not capable of finding a way to suspend the Constitution and stay in office, well, you’re not watching the same show I am.

Pay attention and connect the dots. Trump installed a loyalist at the Justice Department. Pam Bondi is qualified for the job of attorney general on paper, but there is no question as to why she’s really there: to wield the department’s power as Trump wishes. He installed a loyalist—an unqualified one—as the head of the nation’s intelligence services. Tulsi Gabbard will also do whatever Trump wants. And he’s done the same at the FBI. Kash Patel is obviously there to investigate Trump’s political foes and critics. Incidentally, this week, Patel is also apparently going to be sworn in as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These moves give Trump personal control over the country’s legal and intelligence services.

Then, on Friday night, he took an even more ominous step with a military purge, firing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and five other senior officers. His new chairman is another loyalist, John Dan Caine (nickname “Razin”), who does not meet the legal qualifications for the job. Under law, the president can override the language about qualifications if he deems the appointment to be in “the national interest.” I’m not sure about the national interest, but Cain is surely in the Trumpian interest. Trump once claimed that Cain said to him, “I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.”

Those terminated included the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Why do they matter? Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall put his finger on it last week: “Among many other things it’s the military lawyers who determine what is a legal order and what’s not. If you’re planning to give illegal orders they are an obvious obstacle.” Personal control over the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, and the Pentagon, along with a pliable right-wing Supreme Court majority, will enable Trump to do many things. They’re all bad, but it’s having the lackeys in charge of the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs that are the blaring sirens here.

Tyrant Trump is harboring fantasies of being “President For Life” (aka Dictator For Life) by proposing a constitutional change to allowing him to serve a 3rd term.

[democracyunderground]

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is preparing to endorse significant proposals to reform the Supreme Court and notified some members of Congress about his intentions last weekend, three sources familiar with the plans said Tuesday.

The proposals under serious consideration include legislation to establish term limits for justices and establishing an updated code of ethics that would be binding and enforceable, a source said. The policies, which haven't been finalized, may be rolled out in the coming weeks, which would be a new approach for a president who has long been skeptical of restructuring the Supreme Court.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

Biden told lawmakers in the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a virtual meeting Saturday that he had been consulting constitutional scholars on the matter for more than a month, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

“I’m going to need your help to and advice on how we should be doing what I’m going to be doing there. Want to make sure we have a closer working relationship, because we’re in this together,” Biden told the lawmakers, though he didn’t get into specific policy substance, the source said.

The Washington Post first reported Biden’s plans.

Two other sources told NBC News that Biden told the lawmakers he will come out for big reforms, without giving them details, but that members on the call understood him to be referring to term limits and ethics rules. The call took place Saturday before the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally.

“Look, it’s not, it’s not hyperbole to suggest Trump is literally an existential threat, an existential threat to the very constitution of democracy we, we say we care about. And I mean if this guy wins, he’s not, and now, especially with that Supreme Court giving him the kind of breadth of — I don’t need to get into the Supreme Court right now — anyway, but I need your help,” Biden said.

Changing the structure of the Supreme Court would require Congress to make a new law. That's extremely unlikely while Republicans control the House, as the party is pleased with the 6-3 conservative majority it has built on the high court.

But the proposals could become a useful messaging device for Biden on the campaign trail. And if Democrats sweep the election, they may have a fighting chance of passing. Democrats have rallied voters against the Supreme Court, citing unpopular rulings like the elimination of federal abortion rights and a spate of recent reports detailing apparent ethical lapses among some of the justices.

Last month, Senate Democrats sought to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation but ran into Republican opposition. In the House, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Don Beyer, D-Va., have lintroduced legislation that would impose 18-year term limits for future justices, ultimately creating vacancies to fill during every four-year presidential term and preventing retirements for partisan reasons.

Khanna praised Biden for warming up to the idea, noting that he first introduced term limits legislation in 2020.

“Since then, we have been advocating for the president to champion this reform," Khanna told NBC News on Tuesday. "It is a big step for him to now call for commonsense term limits for the court and a judicial code of ethics.”

[sleepyleftistdemon]

U.S. Senators Katie Britt, R-Ala., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and ten of their Senate Republican colleagues reintroduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. Senators to two six-year terms and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms after its enactment.

“Our country deserves leaders truly accountable to the people they serve, which is why I proudly cosponsored the U.S. Term Limits Amendment as one of my first actions in the 119th Congress. I am honored to fight for Alabamians and will continue supporting reforms to get Washington working for the American people once again,” said Senator Britt.

I am shocked. I really thought I’d have absolutely nothing in common with either of these to yahoos, but term limits, yeah, I’m for them.

[thashining]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by MeidasTouch (@meidastouch)

Senators are pushing for change in the Supreme Court.

[jokingluna]