SCOTUS Catch-all | Court DECLINES to reconsider Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 704
  • Views: 30K
  • Politics 
The odds of Lurch Bove becoming the next justice just went up another 10 points.


President Donald Trump held a rally Tuesday in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, where one of his guests sparked controversy among legal experts.

Emil Bove, a federal appeals court judge and Trump’s former personal attorney, was spotted in attendance at the event inside Mount Airy Casino Resort. The Senate confirmed Bove to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a contentious 50-49 vote in July.

“Just here as a citizen coming to watch the president speak‚" Bove told White House correspondent Vaughn Hillyard of MS NOW, formerly MSNBC.

Erica Orden, a legal reporter at Politico, called Bove’s appearance “highly unusual.”

According to Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge should “refrain from political activity.” That includes attending any event ”sponsored by a political organization or candidate."
 
Ok legal scholars I see people wanting to pass legislation putting term limits on Supreme court Justices - I thought a change like that would require a constitutional amendment? Am I right or wrong?
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
Ok legal scholars I see people wanting to pass legislation putting term limits on Supreme court Justices - I thought a change like that would require a constitutional amendment? Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
It would require a constitutional amendment yes. All federal judges including supreme Court justices are given lifetime appointments an article 3 section 1 of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
Ok legal scholars I see people wanting to pass legislation putting term limits on Supreme court Justices - I thought a change like that would require a constitutional amendment? Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Some scholars think you could satisfy the constitutional requirements by imposing statutory term limits, but shifting justices to non-voting senior status at the end of those terms rather than removing them from the bench. Given that SCOTUS would ultimately rule on the constitutionality of that legislation, I'm skeptical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top