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

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
1,553
Points
360
"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


Thread fail. When Obama was denied appellate court picks, and Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing, what you Trumptards think about anything went down the sewer.

There will be consequences for the blatant abuse of power. It doesn't require any emotional response, though somehow I know there will be a very profound emotional response from the magats, when the time comes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
 

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.

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


Thread fail. When Obama was denied appellate court picks, and Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing, what you Trumptards think about anything went down the sewer.

There will be consequences for the blatant abuse of power. It doesn't require any emotional response, though somehow I know there will be a very profound emotional response from the magats, when the time comes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
where was the “abuse of power”?
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,197
Reaction score
2,103
Points
920
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
Of course they are; you're exactly what trump wants, a biddable fool.
 

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.
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.
Both the OP and my suggestion cannot be in effect by the Congress alone, it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,883
Reaction score
13,625
Points
2,290
"House Democrats are planning to introduce a bill next week that would limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 18 years instead of their current lifetime tenure, just as President Trump prepares to announce a nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.

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

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” Khanna said in a statement.

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



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


Two things I don't like in this Bill:

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

RIGHT AFTER CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION IMPOSING TERM LIMITS ON THEMSELVES!

:p


Thread fail. When Obama was denied appellate court picks, and Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing, what you Trumptards think about anything went down the sewer.

There will be consequences for the blatant abuse of power. It doesn't require any emotional response, though somehow I know there will be a very profound emotional response from the magats, when the time comes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
Didn't you already have your revenge on the left with the phony impeachment that didn't have any impeachable offenses or crimes?
 

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.
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.
Both the OP and my suggestion cannot be in effect by the Congress alone, it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Good for you, here’s your cookie. Good luck.
 

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.

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


Thread fail. When Obama was denied appellate court picks, and Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing, what you Trumptards think about anything went down the sewer.

There will be consequences for the blatant abuse of power. It doesn't require any emotional response, though somehow I know there will be a very profound emotional response from the magats, when the time comes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
Didn't you already have your revenge on the left with the phony impeachment that didn't have any impeachable offenses or crimes?
No abuse of power, in fact had the Senate, while under Dem control, not screwed will the 60 vote rule, this would never had been an issue but no, they screwed themselves and now find themselves in a bad spot. Their rules, their error and paybacks a bitch. I said when they originally changed rules that this would come back and bite them in the ass. It did and now the lunatic left is pissed and instead of blaming Reid and taking responsibility for their stupid, shortsighted fuck up, they need to blame Republicans, again proving they haven’t learned a damn thing other than being the victim.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,901
Reaction score
1,984
Points
195
should be 10 year terms then you are out.....appointing someone to a lifetime job is ridiculous....
The idea behind it is valid though.

A lifetime appointment frees the person from political ramifications.

And if any position should be free of political manipulation it is the Supreme Court.

I could see a forced retirement at 75 or something like that though
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top