Biden would Radically Change the Courts

This lawyer would be very happy to see a complete overhaul of the Federal Court system…Go Joe.

Shame 1 is too foolish to know things change in a 47 year span and so should opinions if need be.
47 years ago it was legal to drink at 18 and buy cigarettes at 16, as someone just under 21 I thought that was great.
Now I wouldn’t let anyone under 25 buy and concume alcohol and nobody should be allowed to smoke tobacco.
That’s a change of opinion based on lefe experience, not as you say, a flip flop.

It’s no secret you hate Biden, I”H he will soon be our President and the charlatan will be out of office and power and hopefully in prison.

@1 “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” (variously attributed to John Maynard Keynes

CTLawyer -“It’s no secret you hate Biden, I”H he will soon be our President and the charlatan will be out of office and power and hopefully in prison.”

You surely Don’t know criminal law. The only one that is going to Fed. Prison is Creepy Joe.
There is a whole Laptop of Criminal Activity.
Sorry to Burst your Lib Dream of a Biden Presidency!

CTLAWYER

For close to three generations the courts overturned everything that was traditional and Bedrock of American Life and conservatives could do little more than the mourn and mourn and mourn
because the court was sacrosanct and untouchable and this was was it and it was liberal consensus to preach that we can’t touch with the makers of the law
now all of a sudden it’s a shift the other way
that’s it
got you now all the sudden preaching a whole different tune
Pernicious deceitful hypocrites

Just to put this out there………………….

CTLawyer comes from a state where we don’t elect judges (excluding probate). They are recommended by the Bar association, appointed by the givernor and approved by the legislature.

They have a mandatory retirement age of 70.

they don’t have to kowtow to politicians to be chosen as a candidate, they don’t have to canpaign for office. they can afford to take a few years working for much less money than they make in private practice to serve the public good, because they can and often do return to private practice after leaving the bench.

The first change I’d like to see in the Federal Court system is to have term limits, no more lifetime appointments.

I’ve not posted one word about Federal judges being of either party. It’s about qualifications. I have great respect for some conservative judges and disdain for others. The same for liberal judges.
One of the worst judges to ever have been on the SCOTUS bench was Abe Fortas, an LBJ appointee.

There are some incredibly talented federal trial court judges whose efforts have been negated by entrenched circuit court panels on both sides of the partisan split who fail to properly apply or ignore SCOTUS precedent. Also, circuit courts are increasingly allowing their cases to spill over into factfinding, which is not the role of an appellate body. Finally, each circuit has its own ability to set rules within certain parameters of the federal rules of procedure which often sets up artificial “splits” between the circuits. These are all ripe areas for reexamination, totally aside from the issue of “packing” the court with additional justices to compensate for “unpacking” the court by failure to allow the senate to advise/consent on a lawful nomination solely to gain political advantage.

CTL, Gh,
1. Poland’s reigning Law And Justice party asserted their power re: the courts.
What happened?
your colleagues were frothing to the skies threatening sanctions and embargo and just about everything else “judicial Independence “”checks and balances “”the Judiciary must be kept in the completely free from the executive ”
2. Canada and Israel have a largely self-appointed “independent” judiciary and a large proportion of the public want them reined in
For that, your demographic goes berserk “how dare they “”we’ll lay it on the line to preserve Integrity of judicial Independence ”
3. The Law Lords were the highest court of appeal in Britain For hundreds of years
But Your political crowd claimed they weren’t “independent enough” of the legislature
So 15 years ago they invented the UK Supreme Court conditioned upon limited jurisdiction
for example it was beyond its right to rule on big issues in Northern Ireland
A year ago it ignored and violated it’s conditions naturally and overturned conservative Northern Ireland legislation of abortion and SSM and your multinational ilk enthusiastically cheered it on
And here in America which educated the world the conception the independence of the Courts and is structured upon the inviolability of those who determine the law
and you parenthetically made your bread-and-butter career upon 
the moment things don’t go your way
“throw it all out” “pack the court”

Should we retroactively disobey every liberal Court ruling that went against public opinion

I don’t believe that the democrats are responsible for our current level of judicial partisanship because of the Bork nomination. That’s a revisionist history argument from McConnell. Bork didn’t even get all the votes of the Republican senators and was rejected primarily due to his publicly stated views. He should have been disqualified anyway for his role as a hatchet man in the Watergate scandal. Anyway, Reagan got to confirm Anthony Kennedy, who was a more appropriate choice. McConnell really deepened the mess by blocking the confirmation process of Merrick Garland in a pure power move. I’m not in favor on “judicial activism” from either side and would obviously prefer a functioning legislative branch. The courts have too much power at the moment and we should have term limits for judges. The invoking of the nuclear option in response to obstructionism has been a disaster. In my opinion, a 6-3 conservative majority court will be too friendly to powerful interests

I have a distaste for overly partisan judges. Ginsburg was a partisan judge, a woman whose thoughts and opinions were predictable. Such a partisan posture and judicial outlook is precisely what you don’t want when you walk into a court of law. You want a judge who might land on either side of the issue, who has an open mind to the arguments before him/her. That is called getting a fair shake. In a very real and palpable sense, America’s hyperpolarized politics are at odds with sound judgeship.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 82 in 2015. She had spent over 20 years on the highest court in the land. She had written numerous opinions of note by then. If she had departed the court then, she would have served 6 years longer than what is the average Supreme Court tenure.

Her predecessor, a much more capable and wise judge than RBG ever was, Byron White, retired during Bill Clinton’s first term to ensure he was replaced by a fellow Democrat. White did what Ruth was incapable of doing, putting what he perceived to be the interests of the country before his own personal interests and aspirations. Still in his mid-70s, White was significantly younger in 1993 than Ginsburg was in 2015. If RBG had retired around 2015, Barack Obama could easily have replaced her. But alas, RBG was a narcissist until the end. That same narcissism has compelled her to comment time after time on political matters and political figures, statements that greatly undermine the standing and impartiality of the high court.