ADVERTISEMENT

Term limits Supreme Court Justices sorry Libs aint happening (fail)

HJCane

SuperCane
Gold Member
Jun 2, 2007
14,279
17,327
113
Sorry Libs yet another failed attempt to change America. Constitution states Federal Judges appointed for life including Supreme Court Judges. Would need to amend the constitution. That would require 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislators. Another fail.........................
 
Not sure about a lifetime appointment for ANY job.
A long term limit like 10-15 years might be more appropriate.
However I like “constitutional” judges, not some liberal that wants to interpret what people “meant” hundreds of years ago, COMPARED to his personal/political opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul2
Not to
Not sure about a lifetime appointment for ANY job.
A long term limit like 10-15 years might be more appropriate.
However I like “constitutional” judges, not some liberal that wants to interpret what people “meant” hundreds of years ago, COMPARED to his personal/political opinions.
Not to debate with you but our opinion means nothing. It's in the constitution for a reason. Designed so as to minimize political pressures to the Federal Judges. It is NOT getting overturned for the reasons I mention above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: utatem
Sorry Libs yet another failed attempt to change America. Constitution states Federal Judges appointed for life including Supreme Court Judges. Would need to amend the constitution. That would require 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislators. Another fail.........................

Never fails with these losers everytime things dont work out for them theY want ro change the rules... POS all of them...!!!
 
This is why Congress should set a higher number of justices if Biden wins - it would require a simple up or down vote in Congress and support from the President. No need to change the constitution and would have a similar effect as term limits.
 
This is why Congress should set a higher number of justices if Biden wins - it would require a simple up or down vote in Congress and support from the President. No need to change the constitution and would have a similar effect as term limits.
Why after 200 plus years do we have to change anything??????????????
 
  • Like
Reactions: HJCane
Why after 200 plus years do we have to change anything??????????????

Same reason we always changes laws and/or amend the constitution - because it makes sense and is consistent with the circumstances of the present (as opposed to what was relevant 250 years ago).

For one, life expectancy is considerably longer today than what it was 250 years ago. In 1776, the life expectancy of an American male was 38 years, which would make the concept of a lifetime appointment to any job very reasonable. Today, life expectancy is 78 years, which means a judge can sit on the bench for many decades which doesn't make any sense in terms of getting new blood onto the bench relative to how much power a SCOTUS member wields.

The second reason is that nominating SCOTUS judges has turned into a political circus specifically because they are there as lifetime appointments and each side is incentivized to fight as hard as possible to undercut and discredit the opposite side's nominations because they know how much is at stake by way of lifetime appointments.

There are two ways to fix this - one by what the Dems just proposed (which isn't likely to happen given it requires Constitutional ratification), and two by simply increasing the amount of SCOTUS judges to 13, it will allow more judges to cycle in and out of their positions and more Presidents to nominate new judges.
 
I'm not for term limits but I would be in favor of age limits. RGB was 87 years old and I have been around a lot of people that old. The cognitive ability slides as you age...its just a fact. I dont think an 87 year old has any business being on the bench like that.
 
Same reason we always changes laws and/or amend the constitution - because it makes sense and is consistent with the circumstances of the present (as opposed to what was relevant 250 years ago).

For one, life expectancy is considerably longer today than what it was 250 years ago. In 1776, the life expectancy of an American male was 38 years, which would make the concept of a lifetime appointment to any job very reasonable. Today, life expectancy is 78 years, which means a judge can sit on the bench for many decades which doesn't make any sense in terms of getting new blood onto the bench relative to how much power a SCOTUS member wields.

The second reason is that nominating SCOTUS judges has turned into a political circus specifically because they are there as lifetime appointments and each side is incentivized to fight as hard as possible to undercut and discredit the opposite side's nominations because they know how much is at stake by way of lifetime appointments.

There are two ways to fix this - one by what the Dems just proposed (which isn't likely to happen given it requires Constitutional ratification), and two by simply increasing the amount of SCOTUS judges to 13, it will allow more judges to cycle in and out of their positions and more Presidents to nominate new judges.
There's nothing to fix.
 
I'm not for term limits but I would be in favor of age limits. RGB was 87 years old and I have been around a lot of people that old. The cognitive ability slides as you age...its just a fact. I dont think an 87 year old has any business being on the bench like that.
If she would have retired when she got cancer at 81 Obama would have picked the nominee, but she thought 4 sure Hillary would win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dolcane
Never fails with these losers everytime things dont work out for them theY want ro change the rules... POS all of them...!!!
Funny if things were flipped you sorry ****s would be in tears much worse than the dems. Funny how double standards are. Things Obama and Clinton did were bashed and dumper trumper does it and it’s just fine. Fools and suckers. 💋
 
These are the same people who refuse to set term limits for themselves even though that has 80% support across Americans.
 
Funny if things were flipped you sorry ****s would be in tears much worse than the dems. Funny how double standards are. Things Obama and Clinton did were bashed and dumper trumper does it and it’s just fine. Fools and suckers. 💋

We conservatives don’t acr like fools losing an election...
Get use to Trump for 4 More like seeing you whine like a pig... Loser..!!
 
You know who needs term limits ? CONGRESS - Trump picked Amy Barrett today - you know who didn’t pick a SCOTUS justice today ? Hillary R Clinton
 
Last edited:
Same reason we always changes laws and/or amend the constitution - because it makes sense and is consistent with the circumstances of the present (as opposed to what was relevant 250 years ago).

For one, life expectancy is considerably longer today than what it was 250 years ago. In 1776, the life expectancy of an American male was 38 years, which would make the concept of a lifetime appointment to any job very reasonable. Today, life expectancy is 78 years, which means a judge can sit on the bench for many decades which doesn't make any sense in terms of getting new blood onto the bench relative to how much power a SCOTUS member wields.

The second reason is that nominating SCOTUS judges has turned into a political circus specifically because they are there as lifetime appointments and each side is incentivized to fight as hard as possible to undercut and discredit the opposite side's nominations because they know how much is at stake by way of lifetime appointments.

There are two ways to fix this - one by what the Dems just proposed (which isn't likely to happen given it requires Constitutional ratification), and two by simply increasing the amount of SCOTUS judges to 13, it will allow more judges to cycle in and out of their positions and more Presidents to nominate new judges.

so to your point, if Trump wins and the republicans keep the senate and take back the house like they did with the last presidential election that you didn’t see coming, you’d be ok with the right adding four more judges to the supreme court?
 
Funny if things were flipped you sorry ****s would be in tears much worse than the dems. Funny how double standards are. Things Obama and Clinton did were bashed and dumper trumper does it and it’s just fine. Fools and suckers. 💋
Actually not, Republican wont be rioting in the streets if the election is stolen like Dems are trying.
Furthermore if Dems had Senate & Presidency they would be doing the same exact thing.
Wake up, you sound like a sore loser.
Just 52 more months for you
 
Same reason we always changes laws and/or amend the constitution - because it makes sense and is consistent with the circumstances of the present (as opposed to what was relevant 250 years ago).

For one, life expectancy is considerably longer today than what it was 250 years ago. In 1776, the life expectancy of an American male was 38 years, which would make the concept of a lifetime appointment to any job very reasonable. Today, life expectancy is 78 years, which means a judge can sit on the bench for many decades which doesn't make any sense in terms of getting new blood onto the bench relative to how much power a SCOTUS member wields.

The second reason is that nominating SCOTUS judges has turned into a political circus specifically because they are there as lifetime appointments and each side is incentivized to fight as hard as possible to undercut and discredit the opposite side's nominations because they know how much is at stake by way of lifetime appointments.

There are two ways to fix this - one by what the Dems just proposed (which isn't likely to happen given it requires Constitutional ratification), and two by simply increasing the amount of SCOTUS judges to 13, it will allow more judges to cycle in and out of their positions and more Presidents to nominate new judges.

You are correct as to occasionally needed to change laws and going back to the OP, that is why the constitution calls for 2/3rds a congressional vote and 3/4 of the states then ratify. They understood that changes would occur, but made it a high bar to change. They brilliant framers of the constitution were attempting to prevent what you and your Communists want. The Tyranny of 51% on any given day. By your theory, 50.1% could say that Raoul2 should be imprisoned for life and that only if 100% of US Citizens agree shall it be rescinded.
 
You are correct as to occasionally needed to change laws and going back to the OP, that is why the constitution calls for 2/3rds a congressional vote and 3/4 of the states then ratify. They understood that changes would occur, but made it a high bar to change. They brilliant framers of the constitution were attempting to prevent what you and your Communists want. The Tyranny of 51% on any given day. By your theory, 50.1% could say that Raoul2 should be imprisoned for life and that only if 100% of US Citizens agree shall it be rescinded.

It however doesn't take 2/3rds of anything to increase the amount of SCOTUS judges - just as simple up or down vote in Congress.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT