Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Biden op-ed to Washington Post "My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

https://archive.is/yCEMX

Quote:
By Joe Biden
July 29, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT
The writer is president of the United States.


This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. 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.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.


End quote

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5990

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3462

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

 

Full fact sheet from the White House website on Biden's proposal for Supreme Court reform
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This article from the Jamaica Gleaner (one of the world’s oldest newspapers) discusses the excitement among naturalized citizens, particularly those from the Jamaican diaspora, as well as the Caribbean communities in Florida for a VP Harris.

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20240729/diaspora-excitement-harris-presidency-chart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

from the ny times:

deeply disturbing how little importance the new paper of record, at least east of the mississipi, attached to this existential threat to the american way of life. 

To the Editor:

Trump Tells Christians, Vote ‘Just This Time’” (news article, July 29) contained critical information about the threat that Donald Trump poses to our democracy.

Mr. Trump’s quoted statement was an admission that his plan is to subvert the democratic process and lead our country into authoritarianism: “Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

The reporting was clear, concise and easy for any reader to understand. Unfortunately, this article was buried on Page A15 of your newspaper.

Can I ask, What is more important for a free press to publish on the front page than this direct and clear attack on our democracy by one of our two presidential candidates?

Robin Perls-Shultis
Shokan, N.Y.

 

Edited by wonderwoman1951
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The "weird" attack on the GOP (which is accurate) is a long time coming, and the freaked-out response by Republicans as well as the uncomfortable institutional reaction in the Beltway shows how incredibly effective it's been - the tiresome Thomas Friedman is clucking his tongue about it in the op-ed pages.

Meanwhile:

 

Oh lord. I'm not sure I've ever seen a longtime Fox anchor so disgusted with a Republican.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see Walz is an effective attack dog. But what he has is authenticity. Something not easy to come by in a politician.  He's 60 years old by the way.  I understand the optics point, but he's also a veteran. The only other one in the VP stakes is Kelly. Buttigieg is but I don't believe he's really a legit VP candidate sadly enough. I love the guy but this isn't his time.

Thanks for posting the clip of Whitmer.  I hope Lemire felt like an idiot. This is the third time she has publicly stated she's not in the VP race.  And maybe she knows a 2 woman ticket is not happening, maybe she's sincere, or maybe both.  

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Adam McKay along with various conservative black accounts on social media have all been pushing the line of how this is identity politics and shows how broken the party is and so on, which probably means they are worried over the success. 

Speaking of which:

I'm glad that Democrats are not as terrified of being seen as anything but serious at all times as they used to be. Yes, this has to stop at some point, and clearly it will, but this is the world Trump, and the media who would sell every organ in their body for a moment with him, created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • In fiction there has become an expectation by some that every Black character should represent excellence and perfection. It's not like we are talking about a Tyler Perry show where none of the characters are happy and everyone hates each other with a passion.
    • And on rewatch, I could've done without the unsubtle praising Matt like he was the only one who ever accepted Van as she was...but TPTB and their agendas.  It was totally in character for Vanessa to shut down emotionally until she was alone. While she could be volatile, both she and Henry believed in keeping emotions private.  Thank God it's still Bryan Buffinton in the role for both Henry's and HB's funerals. It just wouldn't have been the same with Ryan Brown, who couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. Roll My Eyes.
    • I can probably believe the Spauldings reacting that way, as Alan barely cares about anyone but himself and maybe his family, while Amanda only had that one experience with the Coopers, but I see your point. I do think 1997 was a better year than the last 3-4 before it, for whatever that's worth. You are right about Marcus. Kevin Mambo winning two Emmies (the latter during periods where he had nothing to do) helped.
    • I think @Darn @Faulkner and others have a fair point re: it being an unfortunate look and coincidence. I can see their point about the two Black husbands in rapid succession, without much time in between. Frankly, based on the early casting notices I thought before the show's debut (and I still suspect) that Ted's crimes might be far worse than infidelity or a secret baby. That would've mixed it up more. It's a soap, people are going to cheat, but it might've given them more variety if Nicole was stepping out first. Still, I wouldn't trade the Leslie/Eva reveal material for anything right now. Still, Fanfic Account #3 is just looking for any weapon to attack the show for not accepting his unsolicited scripts. When it's not the husbands it's Martin, or Chelsea or Dani. He's seething it got renewed.
    • I'm pretty sure Lucy and Bridget never even have another scene together for the rest of the time they're both on the show. Bridget isn't even invited to the wedding! The lack of community feeling and continuity of non-romantic relationships during this period is very jarring. Characters suddenly only seem to interact with a handful of other characters, rather than characters across the canvas. I'm deep into 1997 in my watch right now and find that it's even stranger because the show goes back and forth between ignoring history in order to manufacture some kind of separation between characters (for example, at one point Amanda refers to the Coopers as a family that the Spauldings "barely know," despite her and Alan spending the better part of 1996 going to war with Buzz over 5th street, and Alan has absolutely no reaction when he finds out about something bad that's happened to Abby, which seems pretty out of character given how close they were in 95/96) and ignoring history in order to create a sense of community that doesn't quite fit (characters who couldn't stand Amanda are suddenly acting all buddy buddy with her). The wheels really feel like they're coming off in 1997 (although I know some would argue that the wheels started to come off years earlier). Watching the Marcus/Dahlia romance again from a 2025 perspective is so weird. Marcus is a full grown man who must be at least in his mid-20s and he's dating a teenager who is not only still in high school, but is still fully a year away from graduation, and no one says anything about how creepy that is. I feel like the buzz around Marcus gave the illusion that the show was more invested in him than it ever actually was. Even during his "big" story where he's arrested for Cutter's murder, he actually doesn't appear on screen very often. He's imprisoned, Griffin is brought on, other characters make a fuss about trying to get him out, but there's a long stretch of time where he doesn't appear at all. I've been keeping episode counts while I watch and between Cutter's death in mid-November of 1995 and the end of the year Marcus/Mambo only appears 7 times (and of that only twice in December).
    • The letter reading was very emotional, and Maeve really got to me too. I was a little worried because Vanessa doesn't give a speech at the funeral, which surprised me, but then we got the private letter reading and her true emotional reaction and I was satisfied there. The YouTube channel I watch these episodes on (if not on our Vault), also had upset commenters talk about how Nola's line about Henry not accepting her at first/seen as a gold-digger was totally untrue. It's sad the writers don't do their homework and give fans the respect (and the characters respect). And yep, Bill got up and spoke at the funeral too, which was nice.  I didn't even realize that was Sharon Leal until you said it!  I had to Google it. I loved Sharon Leal in Boston Public back in the day haha. LOL at your Reva/Josh ALWAYS commentary. What is RME though?
    • Leslie is an extreme liar and manipulator. I'm not sure what her point was in trying to convince Nicole she wasn't trying to hurt her. As much as Eva did help orchestrate the entire plot I feel like there was too much piling on. Eva never said she wanted to be a Dupree so Anita was extremely out of line for that comment.  
    • Thanks!

      Please register in order to view this content

       That's positive and something to look forward to for sure, because you're right, 1996 so far isn't nearly as good as 1995. Ohh - what is Lonatrat?  Sadly you're probably right. I did feel like David was rarely seen once Marcus came on. That would have been an interesting spin, having Frank and Tina be teenage lovers and Dahlia really being his daughter. I'm getting the sense that Tina won't be seen too much anymore, as she just left Dahlia with Frank/Eleni as she's heading to jail for a while. I like the Tina actress too!  Her voice sounds a bit like Rosie Perez to me, which I love. I tried to find her online, but coming up empty. This was the only thing I could find about Tina Crede - a character snapshot video with clips and stills of her (randomly starting just before the 1:00 mark):

      Please register in order to view this content

      That's wild that the David actor is nearly 40 here! Definitely surprises me.
    • 5-6   Meh. It already looks like a scattershot week.    5-5 was actually a good episode. Damian and Lily. Phyllis finally going on the warpath that I knew she could get on with Billy and Sally. Nate started to question Audra and Victor's alliance. And I was not even bugged by Kyle and Claire.   But then there's Cole's off-screen story. Kyle and Claire going back to being whiny. And them even wanting Adam's penthouse just sounded like trying to keep the set around. And Diane shouldn't even give a flying frak about Billy's opinion. And Tessa, Daniel, and the guitars...yeeeah no.   But hey...JM looked good in that short. And those pants.  I agree. One of Y&R's good points with fans has always been that you do at least see the vets. And IN stories. 
    • One of the things that I found unnecessary and a bit disturbing about Ambitions was that in almost every episode someone was holding or shooting a gun.  Jamey and Ron seem to have the same fetish.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy