Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (1 Viewer)

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
522
Reaction score
953
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
I say pack it, stack it, shellack it, tallywhack it... As Moscow Mitch McConnell has proven with his actions re the SCOTUS over the last few years, there are no rules.





 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Madisonville
Offline
This is a good point.

I'm not sure why we should listen to the neocon at the AEI who has tried to rebrand himself as a liberal authority. He was a vocal supporter or the War on Terror and now he wants a new domestic war on terror. You probably should take a closer look at your Twitter feed.

 

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
443
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Lafayette
Offline
I'm not sure why we should listen to the neocon at the AEI who has tried to rebrand himself as a liberal authority. He was a vocal supporter or the War on Terror and now he wants a new domestic war on terror. You probably should take a closer look at your Twitter feed.


Yeah, it's not like white supremacists have been responsible for more terror attacks in the US since 9/11 than any other group in the history of the nation.

Oh wait...
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Yeah, it's not like white supremacists have been responsible for more terror attacks in the US since 9/11 than any other group in the history of the nation.

Oh wait...
We already have existing terrorism laws that are sufficient.

Indeed, FBI policy instructs agents to open a parallel “domestic terrorism” investigation whenever a suspect in a hate crimes investigation “has a nexus to any type of white supremacist extremist group.”

...While a handful of federal statutes apply only to foreign terrorist organizations and acts of transnational terrorism, the government needs no new authority to properly respond to domestic terrorism. Congress has already provided powerful tools that give prosecutors multiple options.

For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2332A prohibits material support for acts of terrorism in both domestic and international cases. Contrary to McCord’s argument, it is a domestic terrorism statute. It further references 57 different federal criminal statutes that the code calls “federal crimes of terrorism.” Fifty-one of them apply to cases the federal government designates “domestic terrorism.” Suggesting that these 51 “federal crimes of terrorism” are not sufficient because they don’t explicitly use the word “domestic” in their titles hardly justifies passing a new law that would expand the government’s already-broad prosecutorial powers. It is hard to see how a 52nd domestic terrorism law would make the difference McCord suggests.

 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
643
Reaction score
1,440
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
We already have existing terrorism laws that are sufficient.

Indeed, FBI policy instructs agents to open a parallel “domestic terrorism” investigation whenever a suspect in a hate crimes investigation “has a nexus to any type of white supremacist extremist group.”

...While a handful of federal statutes apply only to foreign terrorist organizations and acts of transnational terrorism, the government needs no new authority to properly respond to domestic terrorism. Congress has already provided powerful tools that give prosecutors multiple options.

For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2332A prohibits material support for acts of terrorism in both domestic and international cases. Contrary to McCord’s argument, it is a domestic terrorism statute. It further references 57 different federal criminal statutes that the code calls “federal crimes of terrorism.” Fifty-one of them apply to cases the federal government designates “domestic terrorism.” Suggesting that these 51 “federal crimes of terrorism” are not sufficient because they don’t explicitly use the word “domestic” in their titles hardly justifies passing a new law that would expand the government’s already-broad prosecutorial powers. It is hard to see how a 52nd domestic terrorism law would make the difference McCord suggests.


Well, yeah. We just needed some people at the top to acknowledge that white people can be terrorists. White Americans, I mean. I suppose they've always considered the IRA to be terrorists.
 

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
443
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Lafayette
Offline
We already have existing terrorism laws that are sufficient.

Indeed, FBI policy instructs agents to open a parallel “domestic terrorism” investigation whenever a suspect in a hate crimes investigation “has a nexus to any type of white supremacist extremist group.”

...While a handful of federal statutes apply only to foreign terrorist organizations and acts of transnational terrorism, the government needs no new authority to properly respond to domestic terrorism. Congress has already provided powerful tools that give prosecutors multiple options.

For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2332A prohibits material support for acts of terrorism in both domestic and international cases. Contrary to McCord’s argument, it is a domestic terrorism statute. It further references 57 different federal criminal statutes that the code calls “federal crimes of terrorism.” Fifty-one of them apply to cases the federal government designates “domestic terrorism.” Suggesting that these 51 “federal crimes of terrorism” are not sufficient because they don’t explicitly use the word “domestic” in their titles hardly justifies passing a new law that would expand the government’s already-broad prosecutorial powers. It is hard to see how a 52nd domestic terrorism law would make the difference McCord suggests.


Except that not having laws specifically aimed at domestic terrorism precludes groups like the KKK being designated as terrorist organizations, opening the door for defendants from these organizations to skirt by on a technicality if their crimes are charged as terrorist activity. The law is funny like that. Specificity is absolutely necessary.

Also, investigative policy =/= prosecutorial authority.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
1,428
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
Off topic, but one of the Brandons needs to change their handle to something different.

ETA: Yall both joined here on the same day?? What are these shenanigans??? Whomever joined the SR site last needs to change their handle.

I want to know what happened to Brandon 2-12
 

Booker

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
648
Location
Colorado
Offline
I want to know what happened to Brandon 2-12
It took a little while to perfect the cloning process...
1618626394156.png
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
Except that not having laws specifically aimed at domestic terrorism precludes groups like the KKK being designated as terrorist organizations, opening the door for defendants from these organizations to skirt by on a technicality if their crimes are charged as terrorist activity. The law is funny like that. Specificity is absolutely necessary.

Also, investigative policy =/= prosecutorial authority.

It’s really hard to have a law that does that without violating freedom of assembly.

Even if a group of KKK members committed an act of terrorism, the KKK members who had nothing to do with it and no knowledge of it cannot be penalized or deprived of their first amendment rights.
 
Last edited:

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
647
Reaction score
1,055
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
There's really no good (neutral) argument for expansion of the Court. I've seen some people say that more Justices would increase its ability to hear more cases but that's not really true. The same panel of Justices has to hear the same cases, it's not like the courts of appeal where more judges = more potential panels of three to hear appeals. Aligning it with the total number of circuits doesn't really offer anything, either.

The proposed legislation to expand the Court is beyond horrible and I have no idea what Markey and Nadler are thinking.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
There's really no good (neutral) argument for expansion of the Court. I've seen some people say that more Justices would increase its ability to hear more cases but that's not really true. The same panel of Justices has to hear the same cases, it's not like the courts of appeal where more judges = more potential panels of three to hear appeals. Aligning it with the total number of circuits doesn't really offer anything, either.

The proposed legislation to expand the Court is beyond horrible and I have no idea what Markey and Nadler are thinking.

Other than naked politics, I don't see any legitimate reason for tinkering with the number of justices either. And ultimately, it's 2022 electioneering. Low hanging fruit and all that.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
647
Reaction score
1,055
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
What I don't get is that it's far more damaging of an issue for Democrats to have floating around out there so why introduce it especially when you know it has no chance at passage? It's like Markey and Nadler got together and brainstormed ideas of how they could ensure Democrats have no chance of picking up Senate seats in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
 

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
972
Reaction score
1,474
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Online
What I don't get is that it's far more damaging of an issue for Democrats to have floating around out there so why introduce it especially when you know it has no chance at passage?

Am I crazy for floating the idea it’s being introduced specifically to be shot down?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
The one proposal I saw included breaking the SC into panels. Say, three panels of 5 justices, who would each take on a slate of cases. That’s what I meant by making it more efficient to have more justices. Now, I will freely admit there’s a lot of nitty gritty detail to be worked out for that and I’m not in the weeds on this, like, at all, lol. And I do realize that the current proposal doesn’t include that part.

I did read, though, that the number of SC justices has, in the past, been tied to the number of federal circuits, and that we have fallen behind in this, in that there are now more federal circuits than SC justices. And since there are 12 circuits, there would need to be 13 SC justices to keep it an uneven number.
 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
643
Reaction score
1,440
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
The one proposal I saw included breaking the SC into panels. Say, three panels of 5 justices, who would each take on a slate of cases. That’s what I meant by making it more efficient to have more justices. Now, I will freely admit there’s a lot of nitty gritty detail to be worked out for that and I’m not in the weeds on this, like, at all, lol. And I do realize that the current proposal doesn’t include that part.

I did read, though, that the number of SC justices has, in the past, been tied to the number of federal circuits, and that we have fallen behind in this, in that there are now more federal circuits than SC justices. And since there are 12 circuits, there would need to be 13 SC justices to keep it an uneven number.

It's like with electors and congressmen, at some point we took a system that was tied to a proportional number (federal court circuits, population) and decided to fix it in place. Why'd we do it and what's keeping us from fixing it?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom