What's new
By:
Filters

and they want term limits....

What am I missing? I don't think I really see a problem with term limits on justices. Especially 18 years--that feels appropriate to me. For sure, it would need to be an amendment, and that can't pass anyway. But where's the harm in this?
 
OHV Wildcat said:
What am I missing? I don't think I really see a problem with term limits on justices. Especially 18 years--that feels appropriate to me. For sure, it would need to be an amendment, and that can't pass anyway. But where's the harm in this?
Click to expand...

I agree.

The less time someone is in power the better......within reason.
 
OHV Wildcat said:
What am I missing? I don't think I really see a problem with term limits on justices. Especially 18 years--that feels appropriate to me. For sure, it would need to be an amendment, and that can't pass anyway. But where's the harm in this?
Click to expand...

The entire point of a lifetime appointment is to ensure that the court is free from being swayed by whatever is popular in politics at the moment. It's also intentional to ensure that the court system moves slow and the Constitution isn't constantly reinterpreted. It's part of why the court doesn't often revisit an issue that's been recently ruled on.

This is just another stepping stone to fundamentally undermining the founders and moving us towards being a direct democracy. This is on par with the 17th Amendment.
 
Id say do the same to the house, but they would just play musical chairs with districts to remain in power.
 
Motorcharge said:
The entire point of a lifetime appointment is to ensure that the court is free from being swayed by whatever is popular in politics at the moment. It's also intentional to ensure that the court system moves slow and the Constitution isn't constantly reinterpreted. It's part of why the court doesn't often revisit an issue that's been recently ruled on.

This is just another stepping stone to fundamentally undermining the founders and moving us towards being a direct democracy. This is on par with the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

That's a good point on trying to force it to be ponderous and slow. I always thought of the lifetime appointment as a way to keep individual justices from being politically pressured, but the single long term would accomplish that, too. But having the court's makeup change more quickly does make the court as a whole more representative of the whims of the day, so your point is well taken.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Motorcharge said:
The entire point of a lifetime appointment is to ensure that the court is free from being swayed by whatever is popular in politics at the moment. It's also intentional to ensure that the court system moves slow and the Constitution isn't constantly reinterpreted. It's part of why the court doesn't often revisit an issue that's been recently ruled on.

This is just another stepping stone to fundamentally undermining the founders and moving us towards being a direct democracy. This is on par with the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

absolutely!


SCOTUS nominees should be nearer death than midlife regardless in my view, but it should be up to the gamble dice of Nature or Retirement instead of on a fucking schedule "oh, we will just wait until xyz to bring our case, or pass our bullshit"
 
I agree as well and the point of the lifetime appt is well taken.

however, a 20 ish year term without the possiblility of another essentially makes the same check on the system without the danger of an incompetent Justice serving beyond their brightest legal capability. Have 87 year old judges that decide so much of American life is not ideal IMO.

No way to know, but I wonder how the Founding Fathers would look at it with todays life expectancy compared to then. Or maybe they did foresee that. Pretty amazing men so I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is clear writings on this and their opinions but I am not sure honestly.

What I don't like is someone like RBG that would have gone for another feeble decade if she would not have had cancer if Trump or another Republican won after his next term. That is politics as well.

I wouldn't want it from the right side either. Able minds that are sharp and in their prime or at least on a slow decline that everyone faces is fine. Weekend at Bernies BS is a no.

I like the proposal out of hand but i could be swayed because swamp. However, I trust the wisdom of the FF more than any current politician and certainly more than any established democrat politician.
 
biggest issue with a 18/20 year term "limit" is that nobody would want to "waste" it, so i think that we would see MORE people nominated who are under 50 years old, which is trash :laughing: just to ensure they survive the whole term

i'd rather a min. age of "whatever Social Security" benefits are personally
 
dntsdad said:
I agree as well and the point of the lifetime appt is well taken.

however, a 20 ish year term without the possiblility of another essentially makes the same check on the system without the danger of an incompetent Justice serving beyond their brightest legal capability. Have 87 year old judges that decide so much of American life is not ideal IMO.

No way to know, but I wonder how the Founding Fathers would look at it with todays life expectancy compared to then. Or maybe they did foresee that. Pretty amazing men so I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is clear writings on this and their opinions but I am not sure honestly.

What I don't like is someone like RBG that would have gone for another feeble decade if she would not have had cancer if Trump or another Republican won after his next term. That is politics as well.

I wouldn't want it from the right side either. Able minds that are sharp and in their prime or at least on a slow decline that everyone faces is fine. Weekend at Bernies BS is a no.

I like the proposal out of hand but i could be swayed because swamp. However, I trust the wisdom of the FF more than any current politician and certainly more than any established democrat politician.
Click to expand...

didn't we have a literal braindead justice one? :laughing:
 
term limits are already there. The assholes just need to enact them and vote the person out.
 
“Will you commit to make sure there’s a peaceful transferral of power after the election?” Donald Trump was asked.

Trump replied: “We’re going to have to see what happens, you know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”

The reporter said: “I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to make sure that there’s a peaceful transferral of power?”

And then Trump said: “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.”
 
OHV Wildcat said:
What am I missing? I don't think I really see a problem with term limits on justices. Especially 18 years--that feels appropriate to me. For sure, it would need to be an amendment, and that can't pass anyway. But where's the harm in this?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're missing the hypocrisy of someone crying for term limits for some when they themselves have none. If they start with themselves, then I'd be good with it. Until then they can fuck right off.
 
Motorcharge said:
The entire point of a lifetime appointment is to ensure that the court is free from being swayed by whatever is popular in politics at the moment. It's also intentional to ensure that the court system moves slow and the Constitution isn't constantly reinterpreted. It's part of why the court doesn't often revisit an issue that's been recently ruled on.

This is just another stepping stone to fundamentally undermining the founders and moving us towards being a direct democracy. This is on par with the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

^ Exactly. The 17th amendment is arguably the biggest mistake in the history of this country's governance.
 
Iunno. I'd love to see term limits across the board. /shrug
 
Motorcharge said:
The entire point of a lifetime appointment is to ensure that the court is free from being swayed by whatever is popular in politics at the moment. It's also intentional to ensure that the court system moves slow and the Constitution isn't constantly reinterpreted. It's part of why the court doesn't often revisit an issue that's been recently ruled on.

This is just another stepping stone to fundamentally undermining the founders and moving us towards being a direct democracy. This is on par with the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The founding fathers had it right to begin with. This is just a momentary politically driven hissy fit because a certain group isn't getting their way.
 
OHV Wildcat said:
What am I missing?
Click to expand...

The entirety of the point. Lifetime appointments are engrained in the Constitution. There's one acceptable way to change the Constitution and it's clearly spelled out, you amend it. It's not an easy ask, but it's been done 27 times. Anything else is just political power playing bullshit.

SCOTUS is the primary reason I voted for Trump and will begrudgingly do it again. BS like this can only make it into law and withstand Constitutional scrutiny if you have 5 SCOTUS judges willing to wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Just think about it, if they can reduce it to 18 years and it withstands Constitutional scrutiny, what stops them from changing it again a few years down the road to suit the needs of the day? It's a very slippery slope. That's why amending the Constitution requires two-thirds of the states to agree to it.
 
Last edited:
Emiller22207 said:
The entirety of the point. Lifetime appointments are engrained in the Constitution. There's one acceptable way to change the Constitution and it's clearly spelled out, you amend it. It's not an easy ask, but it's been done 27 times. Anything else is just political power playing bullshit.

SCOTUS is the primary reason I voted for Trump and will begrudgingly do it again. BS like this can only make it into law and withstand Constitutional scrutiny if you have 5 SCOTUS judges willing to wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Just think about it, if they can reduce it to 18 years and it withstands Constitutional scrutiny, what stops them from changing it again a few years down the road to suit the needs of the day? It's a very slippery slope. That's why amending the Constitution requires two-thirds of the states to agree to it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I understand it would have to be an amendment, so this is posturing, anyway.
 
Nothing would make me a single issue voter quicker than a politician running on a platform of term limits across the board and campaign finance reform. Until we eliminate the ability for corporations, super PACs, and the wealthy to buy our politicians before the ever swear into office nothing much is gonna change.
 
east_beast said:
Nothing would make me a single issue voter quicker than a politician running on a platform of term limits across the board and campaign finance reform. Until we eliminate the ability for corporations, super PACs, and the wealthy to buy our politicians before the ever swear into office nothing much is gonna change.
Click to expand...

THISS! Money is power, especially in the USA.
 
east_beast said:
Nothing would make me a single issue voter quicker than a politician running on a platform of term limits across the board and campaign finance reform. Until we eliminate the ability for corporations, super PACs, and the wealthy to buy our politicians before the ever swear into office nothing much is gonna change.
Click to expand...

A while back there was a campaign finance reform bill that got passed that basically did that, and SCOTUS killed it because it supposedly violated free speech.

It was actually a number of rulings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipart...l%20campaigns.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh