Is he going to dress up as Joe Lieberman for Halloween?

Great Line

Pete's trying to win the nomination for the Democratic Party. Invoking Anthony Kennedy as a symbol of a better era is tone deaf and lame.

see my reply (I gave you the link)

and also this from down-thread

Read Mayor Buttigieg’s full response about how he’d approach changes in the Supreme Court, below, from the article in Cosmo that this all got kicked off from:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a29565248/pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-restructure-president/

It ignores a decades-long effort by the Republican Party to politicize the courts at every level, culminating with SC rulings that are seen as radical in a historical context like CU which Kennedy voted for.

still undoing the horrifically destructive systemic RW rigging (at all levels and arenas, not just the courts) that has taken place over the past 5 decades are mutually exclusive goals, nor actions.

So important.

Just change the confirmation requirement for judges to 60 votes. This will eliminate the most controvertial judges, and take away the filibuster games. If all judges required 60 votes, then neither party can ram through judges based on a simple majority.

Unless you amend the Constitution, you can't have current members effectively veto a Supreme Court selection. The president nominates, and the Senate consents. It is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. However, since the Senate can make it's own rules, they can change the number of votes required to be a supermajority. That will effectively do the same thing he is trying to accomplish.

I was not taking umbrage with the constitutionality of some of the suggestions (I do think having the other justices choose/vote on some IS unconstitutional, more than likely, as it appears to violate the Appointments Clause.My whole point is and what I was focusing on in terms of what is bullshit is that bloody pull quote and the false framing that has emanated out of it.

BTW, if you would like to see the actual reason behind the justice's voting on some of their fellow members, here is the paper itself.

How to Save the Supreme Court

I mistakenly replied to your post, instead of the original post. I didn't mean to suggest your post was bullshit. I was referring to Pete's suggestion.

Souter was a Republican appointed justice who ended up voting with liberals on most key issues. Kennedy was the swing vote on roe vs wade, despite being a Republican appointed justice...

That kind of swing vote?

I don't think "thinking for himself" necessarily means thinking in the best interest of the vast majority of people. But it does beg the question if the votes for citizens united was actually an independent decision, and not one motivated through other corruptions.

Guys like Roberts will side with us on some social issues but when it comes to money, forget about it.

values.
The taken out of context and then distorted quote is about the 5 justices who would be picked by the other 10.

We need something much more aggressive.

which he obviously didn't to run with it as clickbait

He may appoint justices who share his views. But, he says he's proposing the idea because he wants justices like Kennedy because he thinks Kennedy is a free thinker. "The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves. Justices like Justice Kennedy or Justice Souter" How does that read as anything other than he wants justices like Kennedy and Souter on the bench and that's why he's designing his proposal that way?

is right wing in others, I'd say that's pretty much unavoidable, objectively speaking.

in the Dem party by people calling themselves progressives are actually liberals.

Of course, we ALL want that, don't we?

Too bad we aren't all shady as hell, though...

18 YEAR TERM LIMIT FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Our Founding Fathers intended the judicial branch of government to be free of political pressures, interpreting and applying the Constitution to the laws passed by Congress in order to ensure that no violations were found.

Today, the Supreme Court is increasingly polarized around political lines, and the selection of a new Justice is a bitter fight that divides the country. The process has become increasingly contentious, and very few Americans believe that the Supreme Court is impartial.

The first step in ensuring that the Supreme Court doesn’t lose the faith of the American people is to establish a clear code of ethics that applies to the Justices. Currently, all inferior courts have a Code of Ethics applied to them, and violations can be litigated. However, as the Supreme Court of the land, there’s no applicable Code that applies to its members.

Congress has put a few requirements on Justices – recusement requirements and financial disclosure requirements – that the Justices have abided by. It’s time that a full Code of Ethics is established, ensuring that people know our Supreme Court Justices are acting ethically.

Additionally, the stakes involved in the appointment of Supreme Court justices are creating partisan battles that divide our country, create bitter resentment, and allow individuals to delegitimize later decisions with which they disagree.

The stats largely back up that we do have a partisan problem on the Supreme Court. The number of 5-4 decisions, reflecting the line between Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed Justices, has increased in recent years. When a new seat opens up, lifetime appointments incentivize finding the youngest, most partisan jurist who can gain confirmation in order to ensure a particular bent on the Court for as long as possible. Current Justices can expect to serve for 40 or more years. For historical context, the average Justice has served for 15 years, though Justices appointed since 1970 have served for an average of 26 years.

This isn’t the way it was envisioned at the founding of our country, when life expectancy was shorter and Justices would often retire or resign well ahead of their deaths. We need to return some level of sanity and balance to the Supreme Court.

The answer to this is to impose term limits on Justices, and set their terms at regular intervals. Each President should be allowed to appoint two Justices per term served, in their first and third years in office.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/

Breyer and Ginsburg and Thomas which would give us a 7 to 2 court in the GOP's favor, dumbest idea ever.

The court needs to be reformed in a fundamental way and while you would certainly need to start somewhere that start point would be after this reform is implemented at a date decided within the reforming act. As stated very clearly in the proposal each presidential term would appoint 2 justices to the court. Some would be liberal and some would not depending upon the office holder.

And just how much longer do you really believe Ginsberg can continue to serve on the court?

A Congress willing to override their decisions, a President willing to
effectively dismantle them and a populace with civil disobedience.
The Constitution did not give the USSC this power, the USSC gave it
to itself. Of course it's doubtful this will change considering most
of the Structural Changes will require Super Majorities of Congress or
the States and with most of the populace trained to be "law" abiding.

with the plan suggested by Yang.

Mayor Pete wants Kennedy-types on The Supreme Court ………...

why do only men come to mind, how about Janet Napolitano?

but not the OP.

thanks

of many of the candidates lately.

They can all go away now.

Citizens United, IIRC.

his appointments would "definitely be people who share my values," and how depoliticizing SCOTUS is personal to him because his marriage exists by a single vote on the court.

Link to tweet

The Establishment is pushing for Biden, and like all things "establishment'', you know the money, the power, the backing of corporate America, more than likely Biden will be our candidate. That's the way things work here in the good ole U.S.A. I'd love to see a fresh face, a different focus, Buttigieg would make a fine President, as would Elizabeth, Kamala and Beto. on and on. But the establishment says that we want Biden because he's our best shot at defeating Trump. Although polls say any of the top 3 or 4 could beat Trump. And so on and so on. I don't think we want a ''Justice Kennedy'' turn coat, who resigned so that Brett Kavanaugh could weasel his way in to the Supreme Court. That was pretty much the deal wasn't it now.

In fact, I'd be happy if this forum itself were eliminated.

It scarcely serves a good purpose, IMHO, other than giving our political enemies a perfect roadmap on exactly how to divide Democrats, in real time.

Not a fan.

same old shite that is done to most all of our candidates

see

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287323118#post29

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287323118#post39


welcome to DU btw

You are conflating parts of the security model with the odious settlement policy, which Buttigieg does NOT support.

surprising that he endorses Justices Kennedy and Souter, believing they “think for themselves.”

He was making the point that he wanted independent centrists like Kennedy AND Souter.

Whether or not it was taken of out context, why did he mention Kennedy in the first place?

This is not the first time he has either said something or done something and his supporters have alibis for him.

If he keeps this up, it makes it easier for his opponents on both to use this against him as being to smart for his own good.

is hardly

Justice Kennedy was also the deciding vote on Citizens United

Link to tweet

Oh well.