SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 723
  • 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.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am no Constitutional scholar, but that Article III Section 1 does not specifically say Justices shall have a lifetime appointment. It states that they shall hold office during their times of good behavior.

We can debate which Justices have been acting during their times of good behavior;)

I infer that the intent of the founding fathers was to protect the Judiciary from a potential corrupt Congress and/or Executive. I'm guessing the founders did not anticipate that there would one day be an Axis of corruption among all 3 branches of government.

So much for the balance of power...
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
I am no Constitutional scholar, but that Article III Section 1 does not specifically say Justices shall have a lifetime appointment. It states that they shall hold office during their times of good behavior.

We can debate which Justices have been acting during their times of good behavior;)

I infer that the intent of the founding fathers was to protect the Judiciary from a potential corrupt Congress and/or Executive. I'm guessing the founders did not anticipate that there would one day be an Axis of corruption among all 3 branches of government.

So much for the balance of power...
Click to expand...
Fair point. Not lifetime but lifetime as long as they aren't impeached and removed from office.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Fair point. Not lifetime but lifetime as long as they aren't impeached and removed from office.
Click to expand...
And if they are in alliance with a corrupt Congress and Executive, there is not a snowball's chance in hell they will be impeached much less convicted and removed from office...

I have to think the founders are turning over in their graves realizing that their good intent to protect us from becoming an autocracy ruled by a king has failed.
 
heelinhell said:
And if they are in alliance with a corrupt Congress and Executive, there is not a snowball's chance in hell they will be impeached much less convicted and removed from office...

I have to think the founders are turning over in their graves realizing that their good intent to protect us from becoming an autocracy ruled by a king has failed.
Click to expand...
I think the founders were well aware that the democracy they founded - which, let's remember severely restricted the right to vote to a very narrow portion of the population - was fragile and had a high probability of going awry over time.

The founders main faith was in the morals and character of the "leadership class" to guide the country to the best of their ability. While I think the founders would likely be aghast at the idea of the President having widespread unilateral ability to run the country as he or she sees fit, they'd likely be equally aghast at our modern notion of democracy in which the vast majority of adults are eligible to vote and/or run for office.

Let's face it, the founders did the best they could to create a functional federal government out of the chaos of the Revolutionary War & the failed Continental/Confederation Congress. They almost certainly knew that what they'd built had a fairly high probability of going wrong in any number of ways.
 
Heard a bit of oral argument on way back from eye exam. The Idaho counsel was getting buffeted by pretty tough technical questions from pretty much all directions, but the gist seemed to me to be liberal justices looking for some compromise way to limit the likely decision … but who knows, reading tea leaves from just 15—20 minutes of oral argument is a dicey proposition.
 
SnoopRob said:
I think the founders were well aware that the democracy they founded - which, let's remember severely restricted the right to vote to a very narrow portion of the population - was fragile and had a high probability of going awry over time.

The founders main faith was in the morals and character of the "leadership class" to guide the country to the best of their ability. While I think the founders would likely be aghast at the idea of the President having widespread unilateral ability to run the country as he or she sees fit, they'd likely be equally aghast at our modern notion of democracy in which the vast majority of adults are eligible to vote and/or run for office.

Let's face it, the founders did the best they could to create a functional federal government out of the chaos of the Revolutionary War & the failed Continental/Confederation Congress. They almost certainly knew that what they'd built had a fairly high probability of going wrong in any number of ways.
Click to expand...


“Our new Constitution is now established, everything seems to promise it will be durable; but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes"
-Ben Franklin

After the convention Mrs. Powel approached Franklin and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?".
Franklin's Reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it"
 
nycfan said:
Heard a bit of oral argument on way back from eye exam. The Idaho counsel was getting buffeted by pretty tough technical questions from pretty much all directions, but the gist seemed to me to be liberal justices looking for some compromise way to limit the likely decision … but who knows, reading tea leaves from just 15—20 minutes of oral argument is a dicey proposition.
Click to expand...
Of all the cases that were already decided the minute they hit the docket, this might be the most decided of them all. There's no way the plaintiffs win here. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see any sensible rationale for predicting any other outcome
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Fair point. Not lifetime but lifetime as long as they aren't impeached and removed from office.
Click to expand...
That's not what it says either. It says during good behavior, period. The lifetime idea is a historical relic. A justice who should retire but doesn't -- like the 100 year old woman on the Federal Circuit who was appointed to her position by LBJ!!! -- could be said to be behaving badly. We could define good behavior as respecting a retirement age.

Note that Article III doesn't even say anything about the offices. There is no constitutional prohibition on constituting the Supreme Court as a changing sample of appeals court judges. All received wisdom on this point is historical artefact.
 
For those of us not as plugged into SCOTUS...what case is being heard today that's already decided?
 
superrific said:
Of all the cases that were already decided the minute they hit the docket, this might be the most decided of them all. There's no way the plaintiffs win here. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see any sensible rationale for predicting any other outcome
Click to expand...
 


“… Although the Supreme Court in 2020 found that trans workers were covered by federal antidiscrimination laws, it has recently handed defeats to advocates for transgender rights. Last year, the high court’s conservatives upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender transition care for minors. They also sided with a group of parents who sued to opt their kids out of lessons featuring LGBTQ storybooks.

… But during middle school, Pepper-Jackson ran near the “back of the pack” in cross-country, according to her brief. Her track and field coach told her she would not make the team as a runner, so the coach suggested she try shot put and discus.

“I was not the best, obviously, but I fell in love because of the community around it,” Pepper-Jackson said in an interview. “Everybody was just so kind and really supportive. Everybody just wanted everybody else to do their best.”

At her first meet in 2022, Pepper-Jackson placed 36th out of 45 in shot put, according to a legal brief. At a subsequent meet, she placed 15th out of 25 in discus. She gradually improved. During the 2024 season, she placed first in shot put in six consecutive meets, often outdistancing her closest competitors by several feet, according to her athletic records.

… Pepper-Jackson says her success was a result of hard work and practice. But lawyers for West Virginia say she “improved faster” than her teammates because she has an unfair physical advantage. Her “participation displaced hundreds of girls and prevented some from competing in end-of-season championship meets,” lawyers for the state wrote.

Now a sophomore in high school, Pepper-Jackson continues to perform well in both discus and shot put on the varsity team. Though she placed first several times during the 2025 season, she also was frequently beaten by other girls. In April, she placed ninth in shot put at an invitational event, finishing behind a mix of seniors, juniors and a freshman competitor.

She says competing — and even winning — can be a bittersweet experience. She says she sees protesters at every track meet. During a 2024 meet, students from a rival school declined to participate in a match against Pepper-Jackson after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit allowed her to continue competing. During a West Virginia meet in May, a high school senior who won a running event wore a shirt that read, “Men don’t belong in women’s sports.”

“It’s really hard to get used to being constantly judged and silently looked at like you’re a monster,” Pepper-Jackson said. “I try not to let it bother me, but it’s a shock every time.”…”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top