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

[OKTexas]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

Yeah, heaven forbid the courts follow the law and the Constitution and not the whims of you commies.

.

 

[Adrenochrome Junkie]

I agree with term limits for Supreme Court judges. But first put limits on congress, then we’ll talk.

 

[Harry Dresden]

should be 10 year terms then you are out.....appointing someone to a lifetime job is ridiculous....

Just logistically, how would that work though? Assuming we stay at 9 justices. Reagan/HW were 12 years. Would all 9 justices have been Republican picks? Most Presidents are re-elected. That alone would be 8 of the 10 year term

maybe the justices should be picked by a court of other lower federal judges....

billy if you disagree with something i say,disagree to me not with some pussy thumbs down.....posters like lakota and jones does that kinda shit,are you like those guys?....

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

I believe we are better off with Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's rulings seem to be more center than right leaning. The elections take the power and shift them to a Presidential election type style where the money and lobbyists would easily corrupt the process.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

If a Law is passed and the SC does not rule it unconstitutional then it is legally valid, seems to me. A Constitutional amendment is much harder to pass but probably would be necessary to shorten the term of office, since the Constitution wording of “shall serve” so long as the justice has “good behavior” will probably be interpreted by the judges as forbidding term limits. Not sure though.

Roosevelt’s “court packing” was never ruled illegal, and may well be resorted to again if partisanship continues to increase, or the composition of the court is too lopsided. But while the party partisanship in society as a whole is definitely a problem, are the various changes proposed in this law or via measures like “court packing” advisable?

Certainly having a bipartisan consensus vote or Amendment would be best when dealing with institutional changes like this. A Congressional Law change on limited questions is certainly achievable, if not at this moment. Any change should be considered on its non-partisan merits. This one has good points, but problems too.

Forgetting about if we are speaking of an Amendment or whatever, 15 years is too short, imo. The whole original idea was that SC judges once appointed should be insulated from any further political pressure. This is still very important I believe. Therefore, twenty-five years service or age 75 retirement would seem more appropriate to me. Changes on when Congress and how Congress can approve new judges, numbers of judges, these can pass easily via Congressional dictate and should be made ... carefully and through bipartisan compromise, with input and advise of the judges themselves.

Term limits for Senators and House Representatives is also a touchy subject, and there are Constitutional obstacles that can be overcome only via Amendment. However states and Congress do have powers to create new electoral districts and even appoint congressmen and women on a proportional basis: The Fair Representation Act - FairVote

It takes time to learn how to work Congress and be a statesman, and incumbency allows at least some theoretical independence from always having new raw people elected and in debt to corporate big money, and dependent on corporate funds and lobbyists. Fast overturn in Congress means a weaker Congress vis-a-vis presidential and bureaucratic power. So I am NOT generally in favor of term limits. Corporate contributions should be limited or ended completely, and all money in politics should be made absolutely and immediately transparent.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

I believe we are better off with Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's rulings seem to be more center than right leaning. The elections take the power and shift them to a Presidential election type style where the money and lobbyists would easily corrupt the process.

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

Yeah, heaven forbid the courts follow the law and the Constitution and not the whims of you commies.

.

Apparently you've never read nor comprehended the Constitution. The courts, in fact you mean judges and jurists, legislate from the bench - some by whim, some by bias and some by alcohol.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

I believe we are better off with Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's rulings seem to be more center than right leaning. The elections take the power and shift them to a Presidential election type style where the money and lobbyists would easily corrupt the process.

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

Whatever you need to believe to help you sleep at night, the fact is the less political the position and the less chance of corporate money or PAC is used to influence the judges, the better. To elect them would bring many troubles, worse than we have now. Knee jerk responses for scenarios that don't favor you are pretty dumb and not well thought out, just like this one.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

Yeah, heaven forbid the courts follow the law and the Constitution and not the whims of you commies.

.

Apparently you've never read nor comprehended the Constitution. The courts, in fact you mean judges and jurists, legislate from the bench - some by whim, some by bias and some by alcohol.

Seems like alcohol has damaged your brain enough that you should not be allowed to think, you are a danger to others.

 

[colfax_m]

you have the same situation with lower court judges too...

True. It's a tricky situation.
We do need a method to rid government of career politicians who are obviously losing their mental acuity, like Biden.

We have that. They’re called elections.

 

[Harry Dresden]

you have the same situation with lower court judges too...

True. It's a tricky situation.
We do need a method to rid government of career politicians who are obviously losing their mental acuity, like Biden.

We have that. They’re called elections.

unfortunately to many people think their congress person is great,its your person who sucks....

 

[Orangecat]

We have that. They’re called elections.

Why doesn't that apply to the president, then?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

It won't stop these partisan fights in any way, shape or form. 18 years (nearly two decades) is practically generational. Just think of how many cases with political ramifications are decided by the Supreme Court in the span of two decades. As an example, that would cover a span from the end of Clinton's second term into Trump's first term.

 

[colfax_m]

you have the same situation with lower court judges too...

True. It's a tricky situation.
We do need a method to rid government of career politicians who are obviously losing their mental acuity, like Biden.

We have that. They’re called elections.

unfortunately to many people think their congress person is great,its your person who sucks....

Well, unfortunately for you, a congressperson is intended to represent their constituents and not intended to make everyone else happy.

 

[colfax_m]

We have that. They’re called elections.

Why doesn't that apply to the president, then?

Because the presidency is too uniquely powerful, as opposed to members of Congress who are but one in a large body.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I think they should just be forced to retire at 80. And they cant do cable news

 

[Orangecat]

Because the presidency is too uniquely powerful, as opposed to members of Congress who are but one in a large body.

I think 50 years in congress is more powerful and influencial than an 8 year POTUS.
If term limits are good for the goose, they're good for the gander, imho.

 

[Harry Dresden]

you have the same situation with lower court judges too...

True. It's a tricky situation.
We do need a method to rid government of career politicians who are obviously losing their mental acuity, like Biden.

We have that. They’re called elections.

unfortunately to many people think their congress person is great,its your person who sucks....

Well, unfortunately for you, a congressperson is intended to represent their constituents and not intended to make everyone else happy.

unfortunately for all of us thats why this country has a congress with such a shitty approval rating.....

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

I believe we are better off with Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's rulings seem to be more center than right leaning. The elections take the power and shift them to a Presidential election type style where the money and lobbyists would easily corrupt the process.

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

Whatever you need to believe to help you sleep at night, the fact is the less political the position and the less chance of corporate money or PAC is used to influence the judges, the better. To elect them would bring many troubles, worse than we have now. Knee jerk responses for scenarios that don't favor you are pretty dumb and not well thought out, just like this one.

Gee the longest ad hominem of the week.

Q. How many judges have you known, how many times have you sat in court and in chambers?

I can't give you a number, but in my 32 years as an officer of the court, I know what I know.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Democrats to Propose Bill Limiting Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years | National Review

House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week.

www.nationalreview.com

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.

This is why we are in real trouble: Thomas, Alto and Kavanaugh.

Yeah, heaven forbid the courts follow the law and the Constitution and not the whims of you commies.

.

Apparently you've never read nor comprehended the Constitution. The courts, in fact you mean judges and jurists, legislate from the bench - some by whim, some by bias and some by alcohol.

Really, I was always taught the function of a judge no matter at what lever are there to apply the law and Constitution to the disputes before them. If they are incapable of doing that they are in the wrong position.

.