Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: SCOTUS TERM LIMITS

  1. #1

    Exclamation SCOTUS TERM LIMITS

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

    Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court's legitimacy.

    The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

    "It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

    YES! YES! YES!



    I could totally get behind this even from the DEMS.

    Contact Info:

    https://khanna.house.gov/

    https://kennedy.house.gov/

    https://beyer.house.gov/
    Last edited by Pauls' Revere; 09-24-2020 at 06:09 PM.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

    Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court's legitimacy.

    The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

    "It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

    YES! YES! YES!



    I could totally get behind this even from the DEMS.
    I can't support any term limits, I could support an age limit to deal with the possibility of senility but what is really needed is to let a President remove them with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I can't support any term limits, I could support an age limit to deal with the possibility of senility but what is really needed is to let a President remove them with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    That's awesome as well. Baby steps. Set the terms then we can have them removed/impeached.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I can't support any term limits, I could support an age limit to deal with the possibility of senility but what is really needed is to let a President remove them with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    Then we can set term limits for each house.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  6. #5
    What's the point? So the D's and R's can fight about it more often?

  7. #6
    Meow meow constitution
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  8. #7
    Time limits would only serve to make the supreme court into a political boondoggle. They aren't politicians they are judges. Time limits would just get shortened when its politically beneficial so it's a slippery slope. The judicial branch is supposed to be a check in power against the other branches of the government. This would just be a slow creep to take over the judicial process and make it a political process.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Time limits would only serve to make the supreme court into a political boondoggle. They aren't politicians they are judges. Time limits would just get shortened when its politically beneficial so it's a slippery slope. The judicial branch is supposed to be a check in power against the other branches of the government. This would just be a slow creep to take over the judicial process and make it a political process.
    Judges have always been political and always will be, that's why they should be able to be removed by the same method they are chosen.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Meow meow constitution
    ^^This. The terms of a SCOTUS justice are set forth in Article III, changing that would take an amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Time limits would only serve to make the supreme court into a political boondoggle.

    Huh?

    When wasnt it?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  13. #11
    I'm guessing the Democrats want to do this because they want to get rid of all judges that Trump appoints.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    ^^This. The terms of a SCOTUS justice are set forth in Article III, changing that would take an amendment.
    The bill attempts to avoid this by making it inapplicable to current justices. But the language of the Constitution is clear, and it should have been obvious to the bill's sponsors that the 18-year term limit is unconstitutional.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Time limits would only serve to make the supreme court into a political boondoggle. They aren't politicians they are judges. Time limits would just get shortened when its politically beneficial so it's a slippery slope. The judicial branch is supposed to be a check in power against the other branches of the government. This would just be a slow creep to take over the judicial process and make it a political process.
    It already is a political process, we have activist judges.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    I'm guessing the Democrats want to do this because they want to get rid of all judges that Trump appoints.
    Not sure if it would retroactive or not.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  17. #15

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    ^^This. The terms of a SCOTUS justice are set forth in Article III, changing that would take an amendment.
    Amend away!

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    The Justices will refuse to leave because it is unconstitutional.

  21. #18
    What did Ron have to say about this (what the Constitution's intent was)?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    I'm guessing the Democrats want to do this because they want to get rid of all judges that Trump appoints.
    And GOP can remove DEM appointments.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by dude58677 View Post
    The Justices will refuse to leave because it is unconstitutional.
    not if there is an amendment.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    And GOP can remove DEM appointments.
    Only via impeachment. Good luck with that.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Only via impeachment. Good luck with that.
    SCOTUS term limits would work for/against both parties.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    not if there is an amendment.
    They won’t get that!

  27. #24
    Ultimately, the court isn't capable of restraining the elected government because it's controlled by the elected government.

    The best case scenario is that it provides some inertia, slows things down a little bit.

    Shortening terms will retard its ability to do even that.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS vacates decision on Alaska contribution limits
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-25-2019, 08:41 PM
  2. Are term limits bad for us?
    By Vanilluxe in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 11:41 AM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 10:54 PM
  4. Term Limits. Yay or Nay?
    By Knightskye in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-28-2009, 04:33 AM
  5. Term Limits
    By colecrowe in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 10:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •