(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.

---