Bill Barr: Biden’s reforms would purge Supreme Court’s conservative justices

“If they win, that is exactly what will happen, and it only takes a majority vote and the signature of the President,” they wrote, pointing to a comment from Harris, who reportedly has said she is “open” to a conversation about increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
Oh god no, not a majority vote.
- Wait a minute, Congress and the President exercising their constitutional authority!?!
  Oh my God sound the alarms!
- Weird this dude was the Attorney General and is just now realizing how laws are passed.

Yes. And we don’t care that you think it’s a problem, Barr.

Yes, Barr. Having conservatives on our highest court, have undermined the meaning of American justice, and thus removing them and keeping them out is a good long term solution, intended by term limits and oversight.
- Had they behaved and acted like the reasoned juris doctors that they are trained to be, then they wouldn't have brought this on themselves.
  
  “Stare Decisis? Sounds like some bitch mumbo jumbo talk!” - Uncle Thomas

I'm not sure if I've ever seen that much projection in a single article before.
Essentially every single thing that he accuses the left of planning to do is actually something that the right has already done, and is in fact one of the reasons that reform is necessary.
The most frustrating part of it is that it's not simply that he self-evidently has no integrity and no principles, but that he's a short-sighted moron. Like every useful idiot in every authoritarian coup ever, he's defending the autocrats simply because their actions currently align with his shallow self-interest, and is completely oblivious to the fact that they could just as easily (and sooner or later will) oppose his interests, and by then, in part specifically because of his shallow stupidity, it'll be too late to do anything about it.
- Bill Barr is not the least bit stupid nor short-sighted. He is not a useful idiot. He knows exactly what he is: a member of and functionary for the capitalist class, and he knows exactly what he’s doing: fighting a class war against the working class. Autocrats’ interests always have and always will align with the interests of the capitalist class.

I would really like to see our supreme court filled with neutral people. Someone that will side with the law, not religion, not party lines. It's really what we should have but clowns are going to clown.
- That's the way judges are supposed to be, just not how it works in reality.
- Problem is that the law itself is partisan, because it was dictated by the wealthy at gunpoint
- In theory that's how it works already. In practice, there is currently no disadvantage to appointing partisan judges and no system in which to objectively measure partisanship of a candidate. What that means is that there will always be partisan parties appointing partisan judges and there will always be candidates who claimed to be neutral who will be either accused of or proven to be partisan anyway.
  In the current system true neutrality on the bench does not exist
  
  Pretty easy to find out if they're religious though. Getting rid of that would help quite a bit. A system to hold them accountable for being asshats would be great too.

It's journalistic malpractice to write an entire piece on expanding the court quoting Bill Barr without even once mentioning the corruption that got us here.

I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.
"Chief" "Justice" John Roberts
- Roberts and the Roberts Court should be reminded of this daily. Especially after these proposed reforms which were made necessary by the actions of the Roberts Court.
  
  It’s just something they laugh at as the collect their bribes.
- "to the best of my ability" is a very favorable loophole in that oath.

It would purge corruption, so... yes.

Conservatism is a poison on society. Whats the problem?

Yes.
Because y'all illegitimately installed corrupt frauds.

Good.

These judges are supposed to be impartial, Bill. They shouldn't ascribe to any party, and they definitely shouldn't do it publicly. Now, what's going on here in reality is way worse than what I just said.

Eh, it'd be a good step in the right direction if they did stack the court (though term limits and a code of conduct are laughable half-measures at best), but I have my doubts the dems will do anything. If they sincerely believed that the american right wanted to end democracy and put dem politicians in camps (to be clear, they're fine with other people being in camps), one would assume they'd be using that newfound presidential immunity to start drone striking "threats to the republic".
Edit: oh and obviously whatever tools the dems use, the republicans will use more ruthlessly as they care far, far less about optics. Might as well play to win.

Yo is this that guy that's in criminal contempt of congress and supposed to be in prison?
That guy with ties to Epstein who died in his custody after 2 security cameras mysteriously malfunctioned at the same time and 2 guards were "asleep"?
The guy Trump hired to obstruct an investigation into himself?
- The walrus himself, good ol' "bill the gigantic piece of shit barr"
  The same barr who jumped ahead of the release of the Muller report to lie to the press about it so they ran with his version instead of reality...

Conservatives need to go

So what’s the down side?

I read Bill Burr and was confused.
This will never pass though.

So out of curiosity from outside the US - why hasn't it been done before? I.e. during Biden's original term as a president, or perhaps in his VP term with Obama?
- Because the changes would likely require a Constitutional Amendment. For setting a term limit, Article 3 of the US Constitution establishes that judges serve while "in good standing". This has been interpreted as meaning "for life". And this interpretation has some pretty strong backing from Hamilton's writing in The Federalist Papers No. 78. While the Federalist Papers do not, technically, have legal standing in the US, they are often used to fill in the gaps left by the imprecise language of the US Constitution.
  Enforcing a code of ethics is probably a muddier situation. Article 3 establishes that Judges serve during "Good Behavior". But how is that defined and who gets to define it? Technically, The House of Representatives can impeach a judge (and this has happened in the past). So, the Legislature could simply say, "we'll impeach judges for violating this list of things". At the same time, an impeachment is not self-executing. So, a judge would not be automatically fired for violating one of those things. At best, the list would be a guideline and the sitting House (at the time of the impeachment) would have to draw up and vote on articles of impeachment. Could the legislature pass a law making the removal of a judge self-executing by defining "Good Behavior"? Maybe, though the same Judaical Branch whom it would affect would be the one to make that decision. I strongly suspect they would say, "no". And that may not be the worst outcome.
  In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton makes the argument that the Judiciary must be very independent from the Legislature and Executive branches to avoid becoming an arm of those branches. The claim is that the Judiciary must be free to judge the actions of the other two branches, and rule purely on the Constitution and the Law. If the Legislature and Executive get to start tinkering with the tenure of judges, via rule making, there will be some incentive for the Judaical branch to begin serving the will of the other two branches. That's fine, if you agree with the other two branches, it's less so when you don't. In the end, I suspect that an enforceable code of ethics is going to require a Constitutional Amendment as well.
  The changes to Presidential Immunity are probably the worst one to evaluate. I'm convinced that this decision was very much the court picking a position and then papering over all the hideous gaps in it. Unfortunately, because the Judiciary is the final arbiter on this one, and they say the decision is based on the Constitution, any change will have to come as a Constitutional Amendment. I recognize the circular nature of that logic, but that's kinda where we are at. Unless and until the make up of the Supreme Court changes, Nixon was right.
  And for fun irony, the US President is actually not involved in passing an amendment to the US Constitution. That process takes 2/3 of each House of Congress and then 2/3 of the States. The President doesn't get a chance to veto/sign the Amendment. And, that has about the same chance as a snowball fight in Hell of happening right now. So, everything around this subject is just useless posturing. Nothing is changing any time soon.
  
  Thank you for the informative response!
- It’s not actually going to happen, it’s just a popular sounding promise to make during election season.
  
  Would've been funny though
- Because it would require a super majority of Democrats in the House and Senate.
  
  Didn't that happen under Obama?

Wouldn’t the Supreme Court then rule it illegal and block any code or term limits?
- They could try that. But then the executive can literally kick them out of their offices. At a certain point magic legal words stops being an effective strategy. Like when you've obviously over stepped your authority.
  Congress and the president could also pass a law tomorrow invalidating the Marbury decision.
  
  Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit, but his views on SCOTUS are fairly applicable here. They don’t control the purse or the sword.
  “Let’s see them enforce it”, and then he did whatever the hell he wanted to anyways for a while.

That would be funny if all the justices got got by this. Just having the SC have zero justices on the bench for any amount of time would be a funny thing to happen while I'm alive.