Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

osarusan

Water John wrote: »

Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the civil/police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

salmocab

osarusan wrote: »

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

Term limits seem sensible to me, based on say 16 years once it’s setup correct after a few years pretty much every president would get a pick which would in turn make it a bit more reflective of the electorate. It would need some rules made and initially would take some messing around with the sitting judges terms to get the system flowing but would work in the longer term.

Quin_Dub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it should be. 9 isn't a magical sacrosanct number.

Water John wrote: »

11, 13 or 15 would be better. One post filling wouldn't have as much impact. Also many shades of opinion in different areas would come through the judgements, it would be more nuanced.

I do recall reading an article around the time of RBG's death about the history of their being 9 Judges.

It was something to do with alignment to the number of appellate courts (the layer below the Supreme court if I'm getting the name wrong) which was 9 back in the day.

There are 11 of those courts now.

Quin_Dub

osarusan wrote: »

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

It has always amazed me that a whole host of fairly run of the mill career civil service positions here are filled via public election in the US.

If you consider departmental leadership positions in County Councils across Ireland - Most of those are filled via public election in the US.

Don't get me wrong , more public accountability in those sorts of roles is always good, but having those people more interesting in fund-raising and electioneering than doing the day job seems utterly pointless.

Yeah_Right

I think its interesting that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS are Catholic when only about 20% of the US are. Just as many people are atheists, where are their voices on the Supreme court!! About 50% of the country are "other" Christians but none of the justices are. I find all that quite surprising considering how obsessed the yanks are with God and country, church and state etc.

Tony EH

What makes you think that just because they were born "Catholic" that they are practising? More than likely they're type of Catholic that merely observes the odd holiday.

Just like most "Catholics" here.

Quin_Dub

Tony EH wrote: »

What makes you think that just because they were born "Catholic" that they are practising? More than likely they're type of Catholic that merely observes the odd holiday.

Just like most "Catholics" here.

Amy Coney-Barrett is most definitely an active card carrying Catholic , are several of the others.

It is an odd demographic make-up though relative to the wider US.

The US is a largely Protestant country by volume , yet there's only 1 Protestant on the current court - Gorsuch and he was raised a Catholic but later converted . Brayer and Kagan are Jewish , all the rest are Catholic.

Yeah_Right

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Amy Coney-Barrett is most definitely an active card carrying Catholic , are several of the others.

It is an odd demographic make-up though relative to the wider US.

The US is a largely Protestant country by volume , yet there's only 1 Protestant on the current court - Gorsuch and he was raised a Catholic but later converted . Brayer and Kagan are Jewish , all the rest are Catholic.

That's what I was getting at as opposed to whether they were devout or even practicing. Just that the make up is very different from the national demographics.

eagle eye

Yeah_Right wrote:

I think its interesting that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS are Catholic when only about 20% of the US are. Just as many people are atheists, where are their voices on the Supreme court!! About 50% of the country are "other" Christians but none of the justices are. I find all that quite surprising considering how obsessed the yanks are with God and country, church and state etc.

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

I’d say that’s an optimistic view.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

Yeah that's a bit naive going by some of their public comments

Quin_Dub

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

Seriously?

Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular were chosen for explicitly for their viewpoints on Abortion , Marriage and Gay rights in general.

And those viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with the law.

rossie1977

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Seriously?

Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular were chosen for explicitly for their viewpoints on Abortion , Marriage and Gay rights in general.

And those viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with the law.

Supreme Court should be the most qualified candidates and instead it's become partisan mess especially over past decade.

Kavanaugh and Barrett wouldn't get work on TV court if judges were picked on talent and qualifications.

biko

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-refugees-trump-policies-intact/2021/04/11/d3cd4c36-9aef-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

Biden set to accept fewest refugees of any modern president, including Trump, report says

Signing a presidential determination typically takes place almost immediately after such policy announcements. The delay has so far lasted eight weeks.

Because of it, Biden is on track to accept the fewest refugees this year of any modern president, including Trump, according to a report released Friday from the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit humanitarian aid group.

duploelabs

biko wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-refugees-trump-policies-intact/2021/04/11/d3cd4c36-9aef-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

Biden set to accept fewest refugees of any modern president, including Trump, report says

Is that not what you want?

frag420

Not if Biden is doing it, jeez!!!

Smee_Again

duploelabs wrote: »

Is that not what you want?

Not when Biden does it obviously.

namloc1980

Trump supporters: "Biden is soft on refugees! He wants open borders!!! Waaaaahhhhhhh"

Reality: Biden is set to accept less refugees than his predecessor.

Trump Supporters: "Biden is too tough on refugees - oh the humanity!! Waaaaahhhhhhhh"

biko

Lol, Biden could close the borders fully and I would still be the bad guy somehow

Overheal

Seems incumbent on him to un**** the mess Trump left him first.

Cody montana

“Biden plans to announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11 - the 20th anniversary of 9/11”

Thought he was a war monger?

namloc1980

Cody montana wrote: »

“Biden plans to announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11 - the 20th anniversary of 9/11”

Thought he was a war monger?

Aprl 2017 - 3 months into the job under Trump the largest non nuclear weapon in the US arsenal was used on Afghanistan.

April 2021 - 3 months into the job Biden announces a full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

For right wingers one of these men is hailed as "the peace president" and the other a "war monger". :pac:

biko

Good that Biden also wants to pull out of Afghanistan. It'll be a year later than first planned but at least it may happen.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

Good that Biden also wants to pull out of Afghanistan. It'll be a year later than first planned but at least it may happen.

given Biden wasn't in office at that time you will have to blame that on Trump.

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

given Biden wasn't in office at that time you will have to blame that on Trump.

And we still need to get to the bottom of why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office on 9/11. Sus.

ohnonotgmail

Overheal wrote: »

And we still need to get to the bottom of why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office on 9/11. Sus.

there are definitely unanswered questions there.

silverharp

biko wrote: »

Good that Biden also wants to pull out of Afghanistan. It'll be a year later than first planned but at least it may happen.

:pac: , what happened the last time ?

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/256576278818353152

Overheal

silverharp wrote: »

:pac: , what happened the last time ?

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/256576278818353152

Because it's so simple and unilateral right

By May 2014 no agreement on the bilateral security agreement had been reached. Obama on a trip to Afghanistan in late May 2014 said he was about to make decisions on the transition and was in the country to meet with Afghanistan's leaders prior to making those decisions final.[155] On 27 May 2014, Obama announced that U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan would end in December 2014.[156][157] A residual force of 9,800 troops would remain in the country which includes a group of troops to train and advise Afghan security forces and a separate group of Special Operations forces to continue counterterrorism missions against remnants of al-Qaeda.[158][159] These forces would be halved by the end of 2015, and consolidated at Bagram Air Base and in Kabul. Obama also announced that all U.S. forces, with the exception of a "normal embassy presence," would be removed from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.[138] These remaining forces would be a regular armed forces assistance group, largely to handle military sales under the authority of the U.S. ambassador,[158] but also guard the US embassy, train Afghan forces and support counter-terrorism operations.[157] These troop will not exceed 1,000 troops, akin to the security presence that is currently as of May 2014 in Iraq.[159] The president's plans were subject to the approval of the incoming Afghan government and its willingness to sign the bilateral security agreement providing immunity for U.S. troops serving in the country, which outgoing president Karzai had refused to sign.[160][161][162] The U.S. post 2014 presence plans were welcomed by outgoing Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai saying that Afghanistan was ready to take responsibility for its own security and the move could pave the way for Taliban peace talks.[163] While Afghanistan military forces reacted to Obama's plans with skepticism arguing among other things that Afghan military's lack of air support and heavy artillery couldn't be overcome by 2016 or 2017 and NATO welcomed the announcement, U.S. politicians split along party lines to Obama's drawdown and post 2014 presence plans, Afghanistan lawmakers considered those plans a blow to Afghan morale and American think tanks questioned the post presence limitation to the end of 2016 pointing out to experience in Germany, Britain, Korea and Japan, where U.S. forces remain long after wars have ended but the need to support strong allies remains.[138][156][158][159]

BanditLuke

Cody montana wrote: »

“Biden plans to announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11 - the 20th anniversary of 9/11”

Thought he was a war monger?

Talk is cheap.

Speaking of cheap talk looks like Biden is just continuing what Trump did and is throwing kids in cages on the Mexican border.

Who'd have tunk it huh.

Cody montana

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden has made zero effort into fulfilling his election promise to end the forever wars in places like Syria. It's hilarious that Biden's administration includes many hawks from the Obama years who are eager to return to the policy that witnessed saint Obama bomb seven sovereign nations in 6 short years.

All this signals a return to business as usual where the state department and pentagon spearhead America's imperialist ambitions abroad.

The swamp is back in action.

BanditLuke wrote: »

Talk is cheap.

Speaking of cheap talk looks like Biden is just continuing what Trump did and is throwing kids in cages on the Mexican border.

Who'd have tunk it huh.

This you?

Nice diversion BTW.