easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,194
- 2,645
"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!
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