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

[Rye Catcher]

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

And what else did they tell you to think?

Kavanaugh's appearance in the senate confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is both a drunk and a misogynists as well as a spoiled child.

 

[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.

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.

.

So you contradict what you claimed you were taught, that is, "I was always taught the function of a judge no matter at what lever(sic) are there to apply the law and Constitution to the disputes before them".

"Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational of part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections"

pg. 8 The Court Years 1939-1975
The Autobiography of William O. Douglas

Advice given to Justice Douglas by the Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes:

"Hughes made a statement to me which at the time was shattering but which over the years turned out to be true".
ibid

 

[Norman]

"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!

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

What fights?

Democrats are losing again, and want to change the rules. Just like with mail in voting.

Let them lose, we don't need these losers leading others.

 

[Doc7505]

Term limits is good but won't happen

~~~~~~
If term limits can be placed on Supreme Court Justices by Congress without a Constitutional Amendement, then why can't We The People force Congress to accept the same... What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

And what else did they tell you to think?

Kavanaugh's appearance in the senate confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is both a drunk and a misogynists as well as a spoiled child.

And what would your appearance be if the commies dragged you through what he's been through? He admits he likes to have a few beers once in a while. Big deal. What real man doesn't? All these bimbos climbing out of the woodwork were as phony as Blasey herself. Therefore you have zero evidence he's a rapist and zero evidence he's a dunk. You don't graduate at the top of your class from an ivy league college being drunk all the time and engaging in illegal activities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Term limits is good but won't happen

~~~~~~
If term limits can be placed on Supreme Court Justices, then why can we the people force Congress to accept the same... What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Because we the people don't write rules for the Congress. The Congress writes rules for the Congress, and they are not about to create one that terminates their gravy job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-25/house-democrat-to-introduce-bill-limiting-supreme-court-terms

"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

Then the only other reason I can think of is to create a dog and pony show; to use that as a campaign issue because of course, Republicans will not entertain their bill.

 

[Doc7505]

Term limits is good but won't happen

~~~~~~
If term limits can be placed on Supreme Court Justices, then why can we the people force Congress to accept the same... What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Because we the people don't write rules for the Congress. The Congress writes rules for the Congress, and they are not about to create one that terminates their gravy job.

I agree that your statement is correct. That is exactly why I brought it up. We have three distinct branches of government created by the Constitution. In order to change any of those branches should require an Amendment to the Constitution. Remember it took the 22nd Amendment and the votes of two thirds of the States to impose term limits on the presidency. Therefore why should Congress have the opportunity to violate what has alraedy been established?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Nailed it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Term limits is good but won't happen

~~~~~~
If term limits can be placed on Supreme Court Justices, then why can we the people force Congress to accept the same... What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Because we the people don't write rules for the Congress. The Congress writes rules for the Congress, and they are not about to create one that terminates their gravy job.

I agree that your statement is correct. That is exactly why I brought it up. We have three distinct branches of government created by the Constitution. In order to change any of those branches should require an Amendment to the Constitution. Remember it took the 22nd Amendment and the votes of two thirds of the States to impose term limits on the presidency. Therefore why should Congress have the opportunity to violate what has alraedy been established?

It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just I can't ever see them doing it. They all retire millionaires with a great pension. Who would vote to give that up?

If we were to do anything, it would be to vote all our Congress people on one election day. What happens now with staggered elections is you get good and bad people in there. The new good people that come in are corrupted by the ones who have spent a long time in the House or Senate. If you want to make it in this profession, it's a you scratch my back--I'll scratch yours position.

Our House and Senate are like a club. You either join the club or you aren't going to last long. If we could nearly replace all the people in that club, the good people might last longer because there would be no establishment they'd have to kiss up to.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

They don't even try to hide it.
For 100 years they controlled the NC House and Senate and did the redistricting.

The moment they lost them both due to Southern Democrats fear of democrats policy under Obama, they filed a suit saying the politicians shouldn't be doing that thats crazy.

It should be some "nonpartisan group"
Uh huh.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The way to fix this mess is by finding a way to have scotus justices make decisions based on the law and a correct interpretation of the constitution, not on their political beliefs. The politic stances of a justice should not even be a factor when appointing one, since justice is supposed to be blind.

The problem is, thats impossible because trying to interpret the constitution is going to be different for every justice when they are from different ideological backgrounds. I mean, the whole concept of the Supreme Court is flawed when you really look at it.

The scotus is no different than the senate and congress. Who wins isn't based in who's right, its based on who has more people. This is why its such a big fight between the parties to get scotus picks. Just because the Supreme Court hands down a decision doesn't mean that decision was right. In a 5-4 decision, it means that nearly half of the court disagreed. Does that mean they were wrong? No, it means they have a different political viewpoint than the rest, and they were outnumbered.

Doesn't seem like a sensible way to run a court if you ask me.

 

[kaz]

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.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-25/house-democrat-to-introduce-bill-limiting-supreme-court-terms

"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

Then the only other reason I can think of is to create a dog and pony show; to use that as a campaign issue because of course, Republicans will not entertain their bill.

Democrats have this transactional, reactionary emotion though. When they change their views, they think that was always their view. It's possible they just think now that a President should not get more than two picks a term and they actually believe they always thought that.

Maybe they are looking at their voter fraud success, illegal immigration and thinking they will win most of the elections and this will actually keep future courts from going to Republicans.

Maybe they are just stupid and it doesn't make any sense. I don't know either

 

[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.

.

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

Yeah, it's called a majority ruling.

.

So you contradict what you claimed you were taught, that is, "I was always taught the function of a judge no matter at what lever(sic) are there to apply the law and Constitution to the disputes before them".

"Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational of part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections"

pg. 8 The Court Years 1939-1975
The Autobiography of William O. Douglas

Advice given to Justice Douglas by the Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes:

"Hughes made a statement to me which at the time was shattering but which over the years turned out to be true".
ibid

So you're saying, justice at the highest court in the land is just an illusion, facts, the law and the Constitution are irrelevant? I don't believe that for a second.

.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Ohhhhh, yeahhhhhhhh, Democrats aren't all about power like the Republicans are ...

[/sarcasm]

 

[kaz]

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

And what else did they tell you to think?

Kavanaugh's appearance in the senate confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is both a drunk and a misogynists as well as a spoiled child.

And for people who were paying attention, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Democrat party has lost their shit and is outright evil at this point

 

[OKTexas]

Term limits is good but won't happen

~~~~~~
If term limits can be placed on Supreme Court Justices, then why can we the people force Congress to accept the same... What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Because we the people don't write rules for the Congress. The Congress writes rules for the Congress, and they are not about to create one that terminates their gravy job.

I agree that your statement is correct. That is exactly why I brought it up. We have three distinct branches of government created by the Constitution. In order to change any of those branches should require an Amendment to the Constitution. Remember it took the 22nd Amendment and the votes of two thirds of the States to impose term limits on the presidency. Therefore why should Congress have the opportunity to violate what has alraedy been established?

It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just I can't ever see them doing it. They all retire millionaires with a great pension. Who would vote to give that up?

If we were to do anything, it would be to vote all our Congress people on one election day. What happens now with staggered elections is you get good and bad people in there. The new good people that come in are corrupted by the ones who have spent a long time in the House or Senate. If you want to make it in this profession, it's a you scratch my back--I'll scratch yours position.

Our House and Senate are like a club. You either join the club or you aren't going to last long. If we could nearly replace all the people in that club, the good people might last longer because there would be no establishment they'd have to kiss up to.

That's exactly why no one in an elected position should receive any compensation beyond the term they are elected for. That would ensure there would be no professional political class.

.

 

[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.

It would take a change to the Constitution and at this time, just like the Electoral College, it is doubtful it would ever happen, but good luck.

 

[Dana7360]

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

And what else did they tell you to think?

Kavanaugh's appearance in the senate confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is both a drunk and a misogynists as well as a spoiled child.

He also has a very bad temper.

 

[Billiejeens]

Kavanaugh is a drunk and a misogynist.

And what else did they tell you to think?

Kavanaugh's appearance in the senate confirmation hearing was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is both a drunk and a misogynists as well as a spoiled child.

He also has a very bad temper.

None of that is actually true