If they include the senate and everyone else in congress then km all for it. Trump could come out looking good on this if he gets behind the idea but only under the condition that everyone is included.
SCOTUS and ALL political offices in government should have term limits.
That sounds like a good Idea. I've been in favor of term limits for congress for a LONG time so....... All Trump has to do is get behind the idea and say if you want term limits for SCOTUS, there will be term limits for the House and Senate. Let's see how far this Idea goes.
Term limits for judges, senators, or members of Congress would all require a constitutional amendment.
The President has no role to play in the process of amending the constitution. They do it without him.
Also, it's not going to happen.
The other stuff mentioned in the article can be done with simple majority in both houses and the White House agreeing.
They can make Puerto Rico and DC states.
They can add seats to the supreme Court.
They can set up a system where a seat will open up on the supreme Court every so often regardless of who dies or retires.
They just can't kick any of those judges off the court.
Until you amend the constitution, the only way to remove a federal judge is to impeach them.
I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I'm torn on term limits. While it can staunch possible cronyism, it also serves to undermine the will of the voters.
(09-25-2020, 07:22 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I'm torn on term limits. While it can staunch possible cronyism, it also serves to undermine the will of the voters.
Yep.
And when the member of Congress is new but the lobbyist has been there for decades... Guess which of the two will know how to win arguments and get bills passed...
If you want to see how well term limits work just look at the FL legislature. Not a pretty picture.
The key is to find the right person, who actually feels a duty to serve ALL of his constituents. If you find someone like that, you should keep him. You shouldn't force him into retirement just cuz an arbitrary amount of time passed. But we're not finding people like that because our elections process ignores moderates and only listens to ideologues. That's the problem we need to solve in Congress. If you put in term limits, but don't change the voting process, you'll just end up with different wrong people every 8 years instead of the same wrong person for 30 years. You gain nothing that way.
(09-25-2020, 07:11 AM)TurndownforWatt Wrote: [ -> ]I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I agree, but the Court does need to change. It needs to yield more to the Congress and defer more to the states. States are allowed to have different ideas about morality and the role of government.
I don't know about Term limits, but I'd be ok with an age limit.
The problem with the Federal Courts is similar to the problem with Congress. If you find the right person, they should serve as long as possible.
If you're not finding the right people, adding term limits isn't going to help.
After the civil war, all of the states appointed judges the same way the federal government does. The executive would appoint a judge, the legislature would confirm or deny the appointment. It's an easily corrupted system. Presidents routinely appoint people with no experience to be federal judges for life, and they try to find true ideologues for the highest positions.
The progressive movement of the late 1800s/ early 1900s saw this was a problem, and they successfully changed almost every state constitution to make state judges more accountable to the people and make sure they actually had legal experience. Today, only New Jersey still appoints judges the old way.
If that first progressive movement had succeeded in amending the US constitution along the same lines, we'd be in much less of a pickle.
(09-25-2020, 10:32 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about Term limits, but I'd be ok with an age limit.
Yep, a mandatory retirement age of say...70.
(09-25-2020, 12:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 10:32 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about Term limits, but I'd be ok with an age limit.
Yep, a mandatory retirement age of say...70.
It makes sense but it won't really fix anything. The clerks are doing the writing if the judge starts getting senile.
And it could have the unintended consequences of making Presidents want to appoint people who are too young and inexperienced for the job.
I'm fine with it in principle, but know in reality that it will end up just being another political party switch depending on who nominates them. You could have decisions changing every few years, although most of the conservative judges would rely on the laws already written. That would turn the SC to another political branch of the government that leftists would further corrupt.
(09-25-2020, 12:38 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine with it in principle, but know in reality that it will end up just being another political party switch depending on who nominates them. You could have decisions changing every few years, although most of the conservative judges would rely on the laws already written. That would turn the SC to another political branch of the government that leftists would further corrupt.
You're about 50 years late on that news.
(09-25-2020, 07:03 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits for judges, senators, or members of Congress would all require a constitutional amendment.
The President has no role to play in the process of amending the constitution. They do it without him.
Also, it's not going to happen.
The other stuff mentioned in the article can be done with simple majority in both houses and the White House agreeing.
They can make Puerto Rico and DC states.
They can add seats to the supreme Court.
They can set up a system where a seat will open up on the supreme Court every so often regardless of who dies or retires.
They just can't kick any of those judges off the court.
Until you amend the constitution, the only way to remove a federal judge is to impeach them.
The term limit for Supreme Court justices would not require a constitutional amendment, because they can rotate out of the Supreme Court back to the Court of Appeals or wherever they came from. It wouldn't really be a limit on their term as a judge, just on their Supreme Court tenure. They can grandfather in the ones that are already on the court.
The good thing about the idea is that it would make a Supreme Court nomination less of a BIG [BLEEP] DEAL, because every President would get a chance to nominate someone, and it's not a lifetime appointment.
(09-25-2020, 01:07 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 07:03 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits for judges, senators, or members of Congress would all require a constitutional amendment.
The President has no role to play in the process of amending the constitution. They do it without him.
Also, it's not going to happen.
The other stuff mentioned in the article can be done with simple majority in both houses and the White House agreeing.
They can make Puerto Rico and DC states.
They can add seats to the supreme Court.
They can set up a system where a seat will open up on the supreme Court every so often regardless of who dies or retires.
They just can't kick any of those judges off the court.
Until you amend the constitution, the only way to remove a federal judge is to impeach them.
The term limit for Supreme Court justices would not require a constitutional amendment, because they can rotate out of the Supreme Court back to the Court of Appeals or wherever they came from. It wouldn't really be a limit on their term as a judge, just on their Supreme Court tenure. They can grandfather in the ones that are already on the court.
The good thing about the idea is that it would make a Supreme Court nomination less of a BIG [BLEEP] DEAL, because every President would get a chance to nominate someone, and it's not a lifetime appointment.
I don't love that idea, but the only complaint I can think of is it would leave the possibility open that one President would, with the help of Congress, make the courts his lap dog.
But that possibility exists today, when you consider court packing.
(09-25-2020, 12:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 12:38 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine with it in principle, but know in reality that it will end up just being another political party switch depending on who nominates them. You could have decisions changing every few years, although most of the conservative judges would rely on the laws already written. That would turn the SC to another political branch of the government that leftists would further corrupt.
You're about 50 years late on that news.
It's nothing now compared to what it could be like.
(09-25-2020, 10:32 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about Term limits, but I'd be ok with an age limit.
Yes. Make it like retirement. I'd say top it out at 65 for ALL political offices in the United States. 70 is too old.
(09-25-2020, 07:11 AM)TurndownforWatt Wrote: [ -> ]I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I agree. There is/was nothing wrong with the government as originally designed. If anything I would eliminate the people voting for Senators and give it back to the States as intended.
(09-25-2020, 02:38 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 10:32 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about Term limits, but I'd be ok with an age limit.
Yes. Make it like retirement. I'd say top it out at 65 for ALL political offices in the United States. 70 is too old.
I disagree. Are we going to discriminate based on age? What if we limited it to a heterosexual person?
(09-25-2020, 03:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 07:11 AM)TurndownforWatt Wrote: [ -> ]I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I agree. There is/was nothing wrong with the government as originally designed. If anything I would eliminate the people voting for Senators and give it back to the States as intended.
(09-25-2020, 02:38 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. Make it like retirement. I'd say top it out at 65 for ALL political offices in the United States. 70 is too old.
I disagree. Are we going to discriminate based on age? What if we limited it to a heterosexual person?
There are many jobs that have a mandatory retirement age. Running any part of the federal government should be one of them. And 70 is not too old, though 80 definitely is.