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

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,197
Reaction score
2,103
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.
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.

.
LOL, did you teacher ever bring up 5-4 votes?
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,120
Reaction score
9,406
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.
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.

.
LOL, did you teacher ever bring up 5-4 votes?

Yeah, it's called a majority ruling.

.
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
934
Reaction score
861
Points
888
"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


Hey dems, you wanted nothing to do with compromise for 4 years now ! Piss off.
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
62,246
Reaction score
14,496
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I agree with term limits for Supreme Court judges. But first put limits on congress, then we’ll talk.
Dont Federal employees have to retire at 75? Why are judges exempt from that? They are not elected to office.

Then limit Reps to 20 years, and Senators to18, IMO.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,586
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,180
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

Except it won't be a real court if Trump loses......breyer is 81 or 82 but Thomas might retire, the President in the next term could replace both of them......that would put the court back into the red for actual Constitutional rulings....
 

TheParser

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,608
Points
210
Yes, we need term limits for the Court and for both Houses.

Of course, term limits are no panacea.

Here in California, we have term limits at the local level & the state level.

This does not necessarily result in better legislators.

Termed-out legislators often just exchange seats with each other.

Those guys & gals find that being a "public servant" is an addiction that is hard to kick.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,822
Reaction score
14,779
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Terms limits on Congress first like 47 years Joe, Pelosi, Schumer and other clowns. The day they term limit themselves we can discuss term limits on SCOTUS justices.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,883
Reaction score
13,625
Points
2,290
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....
I don't see how that would work these days since judges are now party first like legislators.

I don't object to the 10 year limit itself, I just have the logistical question.

The only way I can think of to make that work would be for each party to have an allotment, but I very much oppose building our two party system into the courts
That's not what this is really about. The proposal would soon eliminate the justices appointed by GW. The ones appointed by Obama are safe for now. It's no coincidence they came up with this stupidity immediately after RGB passed away and not even in her grave yet.

When the time comes and if Democrats have power again, they could once again eliminate the term setting it back to lifelong so their justices remain on the courts.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
38,760
Reaction score
7,352
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


It's far to long, they should rotate every couple of years and I'm a fan of term limits for all.

Also you're very confused on which presidential candidate has the mental handicap
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,459
Reaction score
11,041
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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....
I don't see how that would work these days since judges are now party first like legislators.

I don't object to the 10 year limit itself, I just have the logistical question.

The only way I can think of to make that work would be for each party to have an allotment, but I very much oppose building our two party system into the courts
That's not what this is really about. The proposal would soon eliminate the justices appointed by GW. The ones appointed by Obama are safe for now. It's no coincidence they came up with this stupidity immediately after RGB passed away and not even in her grave yet.

When the time comes and if Democrats have power again, they could once again eliminate the term setting it back to lifelong so their justices remain on the courts.
I thought they said though the limits would only apply to future appointments, the current courts would be grandfathered in without limits. Is that not right?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,459
Reaction score
11,041
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
"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


It's far to long, they should rotate every couple of years and I'm a fan of term limits for all.

Also you're very confused on which presidential candidate has the mental handicap
Clearly that's dementia joe
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
38,760
Reaction score
7,352
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.
[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.
Not as long as it's a conservative senate and a conservative court. Republican'ts are about doing what's right, they're about keeping power.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,883
Reaction score
13,625
Points
2,290
I will give Democrats this -

The moment that they lose control of something (anything) so that it doesn't do their bidding -

They instantly spring forward to have it changed.

Instantly it is no longer fair and equitable.
When the public rejects Democrats or their policies, they don't change their policies, they want to change the rules of the game so they can maintain policies people don't want.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
38,760
Reaction score
7,352
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


It's far to long, they should rotate every couple of years and I'm a fan of term limits for all.

Also you're very confused on which presidential candidate has the mental handicap
Clearly that's dementia joe
Careful the kiddo, the party line has changed. You're not supposed to be pushing the dementia thing any more so it will be slightly less shocking to the cultists who Joe wipes him.out in the debate.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,459
Reaction score
11,041
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
"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


It's far to long, they should rotate every couple of years and I'm a fan of term limits for all.

Also you're very confused on which presidential candidate has the mental handicap
Clearly that's dementia joe
Careful the kiddo, the party line has changed. You're not supposed to be pushing the dementia thing any more so it will be slightly less shocking to the cultists who Joe wipes him.out in the debate.
kaz: LOL, still calling Trump "Rump." You're a kiddo ...

Creep: OMG, no YOU are the kiddo, kaz. You are, you are, you are, you are the kiddo. Kiddo, kiddo, kiddo, you are, kaz, you are ...

Denizen of the playground yet again. Give me another "Rump" kiddo, LOL
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
38,760
Reaction score
7,352
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


It's far to long, they should rotate every couple of years and I'm a fan of term limits for all.

Also you're very confused on which presidential candidate has the mental handicap
Clearly that's dementia joe
Careful the kiddo, the party line has changed. You're not supposed to be pushing the dementia thing any more so it will be slightly less shocking to the cultists who Joe wipes him.out in the debate.
kaz: LOL, still calling Trump "Rump." You're a kiddo ...

Creep: OMG, no YOU are the kiddo, kaz. You are, you are, you are, you are the kiddo. Kiddo, kiddo, kiddo, you are, kaz, you are ...

Denizen of the playground yet again. Give me another "Rump" kiddo, LOL
Learn to read. tRump.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,883
Reaction score
13,625
Points
2,290
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....
I don't see how that would work these days since judges are now party first like legislators.

I don't object to the 10 year limit itself, I just have the logistical question.

The only way I can think of to make that work would be for each party to have an allotment, but I very much oppose building our two party system into the courts
That's not what this is really about. The proposal would soon eliminate the justices appointed by GW. The ones appointed by Obama are safe for now. It's no coincidence they came up with this stupidity immediately after RGB passed away and not even in her grave yet.

When the time comes and if Democrats have power again, they could once again eliminate the term setting it back to lifelong so their justices remain on the courts.
I thought they said though the limits would only apply to future appointments, the current courts would be grandfathered in without limits. Is that not right?
I'm not sure about that. It says nothing in the OP about grandfathering.

Democrats don't do anything unless it benefits them in some way. This is the only reason I could think of why they'd suggest this idiocy at this time.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,697
Reaction score
8,360
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.
Not as long as it's a conservative senate and a conservative court. Republican'ts are about doing what's right, they're about keeping power.
Right and Democrats don’t want any power at all. :rolleyes:
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,459
Reaction score
11,041
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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....
I don't see how that would work these days since judges are now party first like legislators.

I don't object to the 10 year limit itself, I just have the logistical question.

The only way I can think of to make that work would be for each party to have an allotment, but I very much oppose building our two party system into the courts
That's not what this is really about. The proposal would soon eliminate the justices appointed by GW. The ones appointed by Obama are safe for now. It's no coincidence they came up with this stupidity immediately after RGB passed away and not even in her grave yet.

When the time comes and if Democrats have power again, they could once again eliminate the term setting it back to lifelong so their justices remain on the courts.
I thought they said though the limits would only apply to future appointments, the current courts would be grandfathered in without limits. Is that not right?
I'm not sure about that. It says nothing in the OP about grandfathering.

Democrats don't do anything unless it benefits them in some way. This is the only reason I could think of why they'd suggest this idiocy at this time.

"According to a draft copy of the legislation, lifetime appointment would be eliminated, but the current justices would be grandfathered in and would not have to step down."

I would think they would have to impeach a sitting judge to remove them since they were confirmed as lifetime appointments
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top