Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits.

[Captain Adverse]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

U.S. House Democrats will introduce a bill next week to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices of 18 years from current lifetime appointments

:



The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...

Article III, Section 1: The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,...

...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.

Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.

So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.

Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

 

[Schism]

"Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits"



Of course they do. Whenever these narcissists don't get their way they try to change the laws, terms, conditions, rules, and when that doesn't work, burn it all down.

 

[dex4974]

I think it's fair.

 

[Casper]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

:



The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...



...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.

Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.

So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.

Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

Sounds good to me, but it would be easier to either Add more judges or Reduce the number.

 

[Praxas]

"Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits"



Of course they do. Whenever these narcissists don't get their way they try to change the laws, terms, conditions, rules, and when that doesn't work, burn it all down.

Retardicons already did that when they hypocritically said that a scotus member shouldn’t be picked so close to a presidential election. **** Retardicons and trump supporters.

 

[trixare4kids]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

:



The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...



...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.

Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.

So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.

Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

They prove what people like me have been saying for the last four years... Leftist control freaks with the capacity to make dictatorships have no business handling the peoples' business.

 

[Barnacle]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.
:
...

The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...
...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.
Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.
So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.
Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"
They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.
Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

Their idea would carry more weight and I think would be open for a serious debate if the Senators and Representatives imposed term limits for themselves at the same time.

 

[ClaraD]

Their idea would carry more weight and I think would be open for a serious debate if the Senators and Representatives imposed term limits for themselves at the same time.

Trump promised term limits on Congress, but he did not even attempt to deliver it....yes, there should be term limits and a maximum age to be on the highest court in the land...

 

[X Factor]

"Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits"



Of course they do. Whenever these narcissists don't get their way they try to change the laws, terms, conditions, rules, and when that doesn't work, burn it all down.

And then, even after they change the laws and rules to benefit themselves while they’re in power, they whine and cry and make threats when they benefit Repubs.

 

[X Factor]

Retardicons already did that when they hypocritically said that a scotus member shouldn’t be picked so close to a presidential election. **** Retardicons and trump supporters.

And Demobrats and media, and likely you, had a complete ****ing meltdown because they didn’t fill the seat. Hypocrisy always cuts both ways.

 

[vesper]

Am I surprised the Democrats are now wanting to change the rules over Supreme Court justices by putting term limits on them? No. They know they are screwed for decades. This would take an Amendment to the Constitution.

When Obama had full control of the Senate for a 4 month window from Sept 24. 2009 to February 4th, 2010, reports were written during that time Ginsberg was asked to consider resigning, You see that was the same year Ginsberg was diagnosed with a pancreas cancer tumor. Anyone knows the survival rate of Pancreatic cancer is dismal.

Poor Ginsberg was plagued with multiple cancer diagnoses. The first was in 1999 when she was diagnosed with colon cancer just six short years after she joined the SC court in 1993. She underwent Chemo and the reports state she missed very few days during her treatment.

In 2009 it was the diagnosis of Pancreatic cancer. Again she underwent treatment that included surgery and chemo.

After two bouts of Chemo treatment she was experiencing problems with her heart. That is not uncommon for people who have endured Chemo.
She underwent surgery on her heart.

On Nov 2018 it was reported she had lung cancer and underwent surgery to remove it.

In 2020 we learned Ginsberg's pancreatic cancer had returned.

 

[BlueTex]

Am I surprised the Democrats are now wanting to change the rules over Supreme Court justices by putting term limits on them? No. They know they are screwed for decades. This would take an Amendment to the Constitution.

When Obama had full control of the Senate for a 4 month window from Sept 24. 2009 to February 4th, 2010, reports were written during that time Ginsberg was asked to consider resigning, You see that was the same year Ginsberg was diagnosed with a pancreas cancer tumor. Anyone knows the survival rate of Pancreatic cancer is dismal.

Poor Ginsberg was plagued with multiple cancer diagnoses. The first was in 1999 when she was diagnosed with colon cancer just six short years after she joined the SC court in 1993. She underwent Chemo and the reports state she missed very few days during her treatment.

In 2009 it was the diagnosis of Pancreatic cancer. Again she underwent treatment that included surgery and chemo.

After two bouts of Chemo treatment she was experiencing problems with her heart. That is not uncommon for people who have endured Chemo.
She underwent surgery on her heart.

On Nov 2018 it was reported she had lung cancer and underwent surgery to remove it.

In 2020 we learned Ginsberg's pancreatic cancer had returned.

We could have a 13 justice Supreme Court in less than six months, I wouldn’t be celebrating just yet.

 

[Greenbeard]

We could have a 13 justice Supreme Court in less than six months, I wouldn’t be celebrating just yet.

15 with six Biden appointments should square things up nicely.

 

[Terryj]

I think term limits on the SCOTUS is a great idea, however, within the same bill I'd like to see term limits on members of congress.

 

[NotreDame]

I think term limits on the SCOTUS is a great idea, however, within the same bill I'd like to see term limits on members of congress.

Term limits may have an adverse effect on the stability of the legal decisions by the Court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vadinho]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

:



The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...



...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.

Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.

So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.

Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

it will demand an amendment to the constitution, this is nothing but politics. I agree with them but it is meaningless.

 

[Visbek]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

Republicans spent years whining about the Supreme Court, demanding that the Court stop ruling in ways they didn't like, and attacking the very idea of judicial review. They also refused to consider the nomination of Gorsuch because February 2016 was too close to the election.... But September 2020 is just fine? And it's the Democrats who keep changing the system? Please.

The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...

So what? They're dead, and they assumed that subsequent generations would change the Constitution as they saw fit. That's why... wait for it... We can amend the Constitution.

Oh, and guess what? The idea of a lifetime appointment was to insulate the justices from politics. Not only has that abjectly failed in the face of a wanna-be tyrant who cannot tolerate the very idea that he could get voted out of office, term limits does not in any way, shape or form overturn that goal.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

Are you ****ing kidding me?!?

Your Republican President just threw a 90-minute temper tantrum on national TV, and has repeatedly refused to peacefully leave office if he loses the election, and it's the Democrats who are "childish" and seek to "rule in perpetuity?" Shut the front door.

By the way, the majority of Americans want term limits for SCOTUS justices. Yet another example of how Republicans don't give a crap about the will of the people, when it gets in the way of them keeping power.

 

[element94]

Isn't it interesting how the republicans got to name 3 justices is simply ignored. As always, I ask them to imagine the dems using this hypocrisy to name 2 of the judges, and then imagine your own response.
Since you have no problem with power grabs at all costs, I'll be interested in your thoughts when the dems stack the court. After all, it's only fair...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Isn't it interesting how the republicans got to name 3 justices is simply ignored. As always, I ask them to imagine the dems using this hypocrisy to name 2 of the judges, and then imagine your own response.
Since you have no problem with power grabs at all costs, I'll be interested in your thoughts when the dems stack the court. After all, it's only fair...

You couch it as a "power grab?"

On what basis?

The Republicans followed the Constitution. The President nominates, and the Senate decides whether or not to confirm.

They can do it any way they chose; from going through hearings, refusing to have hearings and tacitly disapproving, or simply voting by acclamation (i.e. by-pass hearings and just vote yea or nay).

When Merrick Garland was nominated, the Republicans controlled the Senate. They chose to simply refuse to hold hearings. Sure, they gave all sorts of reasons for doing it. So what? They had the power and constitutional authority to do so.

Now, both the President and the Party controlling the Senate are the same. So the Senate can approve the appointment if they choose to.

Do you doubt that if the Democrats were in control of both the Senate and the Presidency, and a SCOTUS seat became available within a few months of an election, that they would also push through a SCOTUS appointment?

Now you want an example of a "naked power grab?" Any time any Party argues to "stack the SCOTUS" with partisan appointees. THAT is a "naked power grab."

So far in recent history only the Democrats have argued for this.

 

[element94]

You couch it as a "power grab?"

On what basis?

The Republicans followed the Constitution. The President nominates, and the Senate decides whether or not to confirm.

They can do it any way they chose; from going through hearings, refusing to have hearings and tacitly disapproving, or simply voting by acclamation (i.e. by-pass hearings and just vote yea or nay).

When Merrick Garland was nominated, the Republicans controlled the Senate. They chose to simply refuse to hold hearings. Sure, they gave all sorts of reasons for doing it. So what? They had the power and constitutional authority to do so.

Now, both the President and the Party controlling the Senate are the same. So the Senate can approve the appointment if they choose to.

Do you doubt that if the Democrats were in control of both the Senate and the Presidency, and a SCOTUS seat became available within a few months of an election, that they would also push through a SCOTUS appointment?

Now you want an example of a "naked power grab?" Any time any Party argues to "stack the SCOTUS" with partisan appointees. THAT is a "naked power grab."

So far in recent history only the Democrats have argued for this.

Come on! Do we have to go over this again?
The republicans refuse to allow the rightful SC nomination of Barack Obama with 10 months left in his term, yet they rush to nominate Trump's nominee through with about 4 months left in his term? It's called hypocrisy, and hypocrisy as a power grab. You're lack of fair play is showing. Just remember, all bets are now off for any further sense of fair play, so we won't see you complaining when it's the dems turn. I now fully support the Democrats stacking the SC for a democratic majority.

 

[element94]

Once again, if the Democrats don't get what they want, they try to change the system.

:



The presumption of the Founders was indicated in both the Constitution...



...and in national tradition, as Supreme Court Justices have continued in the role until death, resignation, or impeachment.

Much like the Presidency, Washington set a tradition of two terms when he voluntarily chose to leave office and not seek re-election for a third term. But it was not a Constitutional limitation, as demonstrated by F.D.R.'s election to four terms. That led to the 22nd Amendment, which CONSTITUTIONALLY limited the office-holder to two terms.

So while Congress can impeach a Justice, and can expand of contract the number or members, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set "term limits" of any kind.

Can't people see the hypocrisy of the Left, and the Democrat leadership with all these "childish tantrums?"

They remind me of spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way.

Regardless of how it affects the nation they seek to "rule" in perpetuity.

After nomination abuses by the republicans. Sounds about right. This is where we are because of a corrupt Republican Party. You can't complain with any credibility.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Come on! Do we have to go over this again?

Apparently we do, because you keep refusing to either understand how this works, or that the Senate was within the scope of it's powers in doing it.

The republicans refuse to allow the rightful SC nomination of Barack Obama with 10 months left in his term, yet they rush to nominate Trump's nominee through with about 4 months left in his term? It's called hypocrisy, and hypocrisy as a power grab. You're lack of fair play is showing. Just remember, all bets are now off for any further sense of fair play, so we won't see you complaining when it's the dems turn. I now fully support the Democrats stacking the SC for a democratic majority.

There is no such thing as "the rightful SC nomination." There is only a SCOTUS nomination.

A nomination is simply putting someone forward. Like "I nominate you for class president."

The President has the power to nominate.

The Senates does not have to approve it. They don't even have to "pretend" to consider it.

They can simply ignore it (as they did back in 2016) and leave the seat empty until such time as the old (or the new) President withdraws the nominee and nominates another candidate.

They can have lengthy hearings, limited hearings, or no hearings.

In the last case that can just choose to vote without hearings, or ignore the candidate. It all depends on who controls the Senate, who controls the White House, and if they are of different Parties, then how cooperative they are.

Meanwhile, as is the case currently, the Senate can do exactly what they intend to do with the current nomination...rush it through.

That is Constitutionally valid.

Your temper tantrums notwithstanding.

 

[element94]

Apparently we do, because you keep refusing to either understand how this works, or that the Senate was within the scope of it's powers in doing it.



There is no such thing as "the rightful SC nomination." There is only a SCOTUS nomination.

A nomination is simply putting someone forward. Like "I nominate you for class president."

The President has the power to nominate.

The Senates does not have to approve it. They don't even have to "pretend" to consider it.

They can simply ignore it (as they did back in 2016) and leave the seat empty until such time as the old (or the new) President withdraws the nominee and nominates another candidate.

They can have lengthy hearings, limited hearings, or no hearings.

In the last case that can just choose to vote without hearings, or ignore the candidate. It all depends on who controls the Senate, who controls the White House, and if they are of different Parties, then how cooperative they are.

Meanwhile, as is the case currently, the Senate can do exactly what they intend to do with the current nomination...rush it through.

That is Constitutionally valid.

Your temper tantrums notwithstanding.

I know, I understand the process, bad wording on my part.
I hope you are as accommodating when the dems exercise their right to add SCOTUS seats, to, uhh, even things out a bit.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I know, I understand the process, bad wording on my part.
I hope you are as accommodating when the dems exercise their right to add SCOTUS seats, to, uhh, even things out a bit.

Accommodating?

I don't have to be accommodating. The Congress has the power to do it. Will the Senate "accommodate?" Will the President (whomever that be after 2020) "accommodate" it?

I can only voice my opinion on it, then simply have to deal with it.

I think it would a bad mistake. One done for expediency, much like when the Democrats got rid of the 60 vote requirement to approve appointments.

They suffer from the idea they will perpetually control the government. The fact that so many people who are upset with Trump still fail to see how the Democrat Party and it's leaders think and what they hope to do? That's something which concerns me about the current political environment.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They suffer from the idea they will perpetually control the government.

For four years this mindset was embraced by you, not caring a whit whenever trump trampled on the Constitution or Rule of Law.

Now, four weeks out from the election, you care? Spare me.

And unlike 2016, Americans were already voting in the 2020 election when RBG passed. Your hypocrisy is stunning.