Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
65,214
Reaction score
22,069
Points
2,290
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.

2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
1,566
Points
1,893
The problem with term limiting SCOTUS judges is the possibility of corruption. Such as "If you make the decision we'd like, you'll have a cushy consulting/book deal after your term".
An age limit would be nice, though. Anyone over 75 could be put out to pasture. This silly "hold on to power until you die" isn't healthy for the institution.
 
Last edited:

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
73,169
Reaction score
11,848
Points
2,060
Location
Nv.
The problem with term limiting SCOTUS judges is the possibility of corruption. Such as "If you make the decision we'd like, you'll have a cushy consulting/book deal after you're term".
An age limit would be nice, though. Anyone over 75 could be put out to pasture. This silly "hold on to power until you die" isn't healthy for the institution.
you have the same situation with lower court judges too...
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,488
Reaction score
6,796
Points
1,815
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.


2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


term limits on congressmen seem good to me
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
Sorry, but We've had to deal with a left leaning court for 60 years, not changing it now...just because the lefties are going to finally see what it's like to not be able to count on the court to pass their shit.......yep this is pure politics and it's about time the left has to actually pass legislation to get their agenda
 

task0778

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
3,285
Points
1,065
Location
Texas hill country
House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.
[Me: As if they gave a damn about our agony]

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”

The bill would also cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The Democratic legislation, details of which are expected to be revealed on Friday, would attempt to comply with the Constitution by relegating justices to lower courts after 18 years on the Supreme Court.



Idle thought: would the Dems be doing this if they thought Biden was going to be elected? Doubt it.

Here's the problem with that bill: Whatever this Congress does can be undone by a future Congress. So, once a democrat is elected the the WH and the democrats assume a Senate majority, they can appoint their justices and once the SCOTUS leans left they can pass an new bill that changes the tenure back to a lifetime appointment. You tell me - would the democrats do that if the President was a democrat? I think so.

That said, there's a few things I would change in this bill. Instead of limiting the terms I would require a reconfirmation, if reconfirmed a justice could serve another 18 years. I would also expand the scope of this bill to include ALL federal judges, many of whom legislate from the bench. And I would not place a limit on the number of justices a president could nominate, 9 is a good number IMHO. And I would also add that court-packing would be explicitly illegal.

Fine by me if they could somehow make this a Constitutional Amendment. I don't know of any other way to make it as close to permanent as possible. Perhaps include a clause that specifically requires 60 votes to change or delete this bill. That way, at least a future Congress would have to pass legislation specifically to change the requirement, and if the American voters let them get away with it, then I guess we'll get the gov't we deserve.

And finally, it's doubtful this bill has a chance in hell of getting through the current Senate. So it's mostly grandstanding to show the dem base their elected reps are leaving no sotne unturned int heir efforts to oppose Trump.
 

shockedcanadian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
12,124
Reaction score
7,636
Points
1,055
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.


2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


Would they do the same for limits on members of the Senate and House?

I've always believed that Canadas economy and progress has paid a steep price for people being in political positions or vital roles in government for 25+ years. I think it leads itself to mediocrity and external influence.
 

Cellblock2429

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
23,679
Reaction score
5,672
Points
290
Location
New York
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.


2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


/—-/ How about limiting the number to 9 so libtards can’t pack the court?
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,567
Points
1,130
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.


2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


Would they do the same for limits on members of the Senate and House?

I've always believed that Canadas economy and progress has paid a steep price for people being in political positions or vital roles in government for 25+ years. I think it leads itself to mediocrity and external influence.
No of course not, they only do things that are in their political interest, this has nothing to do with making a better country or because they like the institution of the supreme court.....I dont want any of it changed....
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,102
Reaction score
2,061
Points
920
House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.
[Me: As if they gave a damn about our agony]

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”

The bill would also cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The Democratic legislation, details of which are expected to be revealed on Friday, would attempt to comply with the Constitution by relegating justices to lower courts after 18 years on the Supreme Court.



Idle thought: would the Dems be doing this if they thought Biden was going to be elected? Doubt it.

Here's the problem with that bill: Whatever this Congress does can be undone by a future Congress. So, once a democrat is elected the the WH and the democrats assume a Senate majority, they can appoint their justices and once the SCOTUS leans left they can pass an new bill that changes the tenure back to a lifetime appointment. You tell me - would the democrats do that if the President was a democrat? I think so.

That said, there's a few things I would change in this bill. Instead of limiting the terms I would require a reconfirmation, if reconfirmed a justice could serve another 18 years. I would also expand the scope of this bill to include ALL federal judges, many of whom legislate from the bench. And I would not place a limit on the number of justices a president could nominate, 9 is a good number IMHO. And I would also add that court-packing would be explicitly illegal.

Fine by me if they could somehow make this a Constitutional Amendment. I don't know of any other way to make it as close to permanent as possible. Perhaps include a clause that specifically requires 60 votes to change or delete this bill. That way, at least a future Congress would have to pass legislation specifically to change the requirement, and if the American voters let them get away with it, then I guess we'll get the gov't we deserve.

And finally, it's doubtful this bill has a chance in hell of getting through the current Senate. So it's mostly grandstanding to show the dem base their elected reps are leaving no sotne unturned int heir efforts to oppose Trump.
Better yet, once a Justice of the Supreme Court has served 10 years, upon meeting that bench mark, he or she should be confirmed or not in the following General Election. Both the OP and my suggestion cannot be in effect by the Congress alone, it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
8,380
Reaction score
4,598
Points
1,055
I can support an 18 year limit. It would stop these partisan Supreme Court fights. Some of these justices, liberals and conservatives, just hang on too long.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
32,349
Reaction score
5,992
Points
1,140
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”"



I like the premise behind this idea. Limiting the length of time a USSC Justice can serve on the bench could prevent a situation we now have in our Presidential election - a potentially mentally handicapped (Joe Biden suffering from obvious on-set of dementia) individual holding massive power.


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

1. The bill would cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

Sorry, but no. As former Justice RBG stated in 2016, it is a President's obligation to fill court vacancies as quickly as possible...period. God forbid there was a need to replace MORE than 2 during a term the nit should still fall to the existing US President to fill the vacancies. I understand why this provision is desired - the idea of 1 President picking 3 or more judges in a 4-year period (I believe would be impossible) is a little frightening.


2. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Ok, here is the door to politically partisan subjective BS! WHO decides what 'good behavour'? 'It depends on the definition of the word 'is' is', anyone? Democrat Judicial Committee House member Gerry Nadler led the Democrats in CENSURING the top law enforcer in the United States - the US AG - for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW, what they considered 'bad behaioir'. Protestors / domestic terrorists are rioting in Louisville because a local DA engaged in 'bad behavior', which despite being LEGALLY correct was not the outcome the rioters wanted / demanded.

How about we hold Judges to US Law and the US Constitution and NOT create some subjective BS 'good behavior' nonsense?!



* I would ADD to the legislation capping the number of USSC Justices to 9, just as it is now.

Overall, I like the concept, like the idea, and given the bill being done 'RIGHT', I would support limiting the length of appointments....

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


rather than term limits I would rather see age limts
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
8,298
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.
[Me: As if they gave a damn about our agony]

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”

The bill would also cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The Democratic legislation, details of which are expected to be revealed on Friday, would attempt to comply with the Constitution by relegating justices to lower courts after 18 years on the Supreme Court.



Idle thought: would the Dems be doing this if they thought Biden was going to be elected? Doubt it.

Here's the problem with that bill: Whatever this Congress does can be undone by a future Congress. So, once a democrat is elected the the WH and the democrats assume a Senate majority, they can appoint their justices and once the SCOTUS leans left they can pass an new bill that changes the tenure back to a lifetime appointment. You tell me - would the democrats do that if the President was a democrat? I think so.

That said, there's a few things I would change in this bill. Instead of limiting the terms I would require a reconfirmation, if reconfirmed a justice could serve another 18 years. I would also expand the scope of this bill to include ALL federal judges, many of whom legislate from the bench. And I would not place a limit on the number of justices a president could nominate, 9 is a good number IMHO. And I would also add that court-packing would be explicitly illegal.

Fine by me if they could somehow make this a Constitutional Amendment. I don't know of any other way to make it as close to permanent as possible. Perhaps include a clause that specifically requires 60 votes to change or delete this bill. That way, at least a future Congress would have to pass legislation specifically to change the requirement, and if the American voters let them get away with it, then I guess we'll get the gov't we deserve.

And finally, it's doubtful this bill has a chance in hell of getting through the current Senate. So it's mostly grandstanding to show the dem base their elected reps are leaving no sotne unturned int heir efforts to oppose Trump.
The Senate will never agree to limit the Supreme Court terms.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
8,298
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

The bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was spearheaded by lead sponsor Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who is expected to introduce the bill next week, along with cosponsors Representatives Joe Kennedy III and Don Beyer.

“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,” Khanna said in a statement.
[Me: As if they gave a damn about our agony]

He added in a tweet that, “Every president should have an equal chance to appoint justices. Our entire democratic system shouldn’t hinge on the shoulders of individual Supreme Court justices.”

The bill would also cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The Democratic legislation, details of which are expected to be revealed on Friday, would attempt to comply with the Constitution by relegating justices to lower courts after 18 years on the Supreme Court.



Idle thought: would the Dems be doing this if they thought Biden was going to be elected? Doubt it.

Here's the problem with that bill: Whatever this Congress does can be undone by a future Congress. So, once a democrat is elected the the WH and the democrats assume a Senate majority, they can appoint their justices and once the SCOTUS leans left they can pass an new bill that changes the tenure back to a lifetime appointment. You tell me - would the democrats do that if the President was a democrat? I think so.

That said, there's a few things I would change in this bill. Instead of limiting the terms I would require a reconfirmation, if reconfirmed a justice could serve another 18 years. I would also expand the scope of this bill to include ALL federal judges, many of whom legislate from the bench. And I would not place a limit on the number of justices a president could nominate, 9 is a good number IMHO. And I would also add that court-packing would be explicitly illegal.

Fine by me if they could somehow make this a Constitutional Amendment. I don't know of any other way to make it as close to permanent as possible. Perhaps include a clause that specifically requires 60 votes to change or delete this bill. That way, at least a future Congress would have to pass legislation specifically to change the requirement, and if the American voters let them get away with it, then I guess we'll get the gov't we deserve.

And finally, it's doubtful this bill has a chance in hell of getting through the current Senate. So it's mostly grandstanding to show the dem base their elected reps are leaving no sotne unturned int heir efforts to oppose Trump.
Better yet, once a Justice of the Supreme Court has served 10 years, upon meeting that bench mark, he or she should be confirmed or not in the following General Election. Both the OP and my suggestion cannot be in effect by the Congress alone, it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court is best left up to the Legislative branch and not voters. We need a balance of power and the courts should not be beholding to the voters. That is where we get into trouble. Can you imagine a Pence, an AOC or an extremist on the Supreme Court. That would be real trouble.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top