• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits.

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.
Comgressional term limits are a paradox. Not to mention they are against the constitution and fly in the face of the founders intent.
 
"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.

There is no reason to call any Democrat a narcissist in a critical manner like that while worshiping the biggest narcissist in America, who is a Republican.

There also is no reason to pretend Democrats are the only people who can be narcissistic when Republicans are much worse at doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Comgressional term limits are a paradox. Not to mention they are against the constitution and fly in the face of the founders intent.


I'm not sure but did the founding fathers and the constitution say that the president is limited to 2 terms? /s

Anyway, the founding fathers didn't anticipate professional politicians making a fortune off the backs of the newly formed American citizens.
Their idea was for ordinary citizen to represent their fellow citizen for a while and then go back to their home/former profession.

Nowadays we have freshly minted "political profession" citizens whose only objective is to get political power early on and hold on to it until they die, creating a self-protecting and self-serving class with long-term goals benefiting their class' objectives only.
 
I'm not sure but did the founding fathers and the constitution say that the president is limited to 2 terms? /s

Anyway, the founding fathers didn't anticipate professional politicians making a fortune off the backs of the newly formed American citizens.
Their idea was for ordinary citizen to represent their fellow citizen for a while and then go back to their home/former profession.

Nowadays we have freshly minted "political profession" citizens whose only objective is to get political power early on and hold on to it until they die, creating a self-protecting and self-serving class with long-term goals benefiting their class' objectives only.

You are correct. Presidents were not limited to two terms. Not much to be said on this since it is now a matter of history.

I believe the founders did in fact anticipate congressional members would potentially be repeatedly elected to serve for an extended amount of time. Furthermore it seems they thought it was to America's advantage. This seems evident in federalist paper 53 written by James Madison.

"[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"


As far as making money "off the backs" of citizens; that is a separate issue.

Lastly, polling research polling suggests 82 percent of Americans support congressional term limits (a rare example of bipartisan agreement bt members of both parties). What strikes me as odd is that if 82 percent support term limits, how does this large majority continue to elect the same people election after election?


We have term limits. It is called voting.
 
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.

IF they pull that off, they need to recognize that the limits work on their folks, too.
 
I favor term or age limits, though for SCOTUS age 80 is still reasonable. The problem is that they are not retroactive. All the current members and Barrett if/when she is seated, will be for life.
 
This is some dumbass shit no matter who supports it.

The entire reason for the court is to provide stability.
 
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.


The idea of limiting the time one can hold federal employment is OK by me as long as it applies to any and all federal employment.

Why not go with 10 years like the current POTUS term limit? Of course, that would limit Senators to a single (full) term and do away with any federal retirement based on 20 years of service.
 
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're afraid they're losing their #1 baseball bat, the Supreme Court. So now they want to commit voter fraud to stuff ballots for their candidates so they can take over the govt in perpetuity. They want to make sure that there is zero resistance to their Marxist agenda..........just like Marxists always do. A term limited court can also be further corrupted to maintain power.
 
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.


Seriously..? You wanna talk about childish tantrums and spoiled children from the Right? You want to talk about seeking to rule in perpetuity while supporting Trump? Oof...talk about glass houses.

In the meantime, this would benefit Republicans in the exact same measure as it would Democrats. Also, your constitution was designed with tools to change it included. This all seems rather impotent, Cap'n.
 
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. :rolleyes:
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...
Two wrongs don't make a right. It will be interesting to see how the term limits thing goes. Maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right. It will be interesting to see how the term limits thing goes. Maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

I don't believe that anymore. I have changed my stance, obtaining power is all that matters now.
 
I don't believe that anymore. I have changed my stance, obtaining power is all that matters now.
Sad to hear you say that, but I get it.
 
I don't believe that anymore. I have changed my stance, obtaining power is all that matters now.

Yes, Trump has changed things forever... and not for the better.
 
Minority rule is killing this country... the civil war turning hot post Trump's loss and court battles will be the conclusion.
 
Sad to hear you say that, but I get it.

I certainly hope to get back to sanity, but we have to be adaptable in a climate of severe republican corruption and criminality.
 
Seriously..? You wanna talk about childish tantrums and spoiled children from the Right? You want to talk about seeking to rule in perpetuity while supporting Trump? Oof...talk about glass houses.

In the meantime, this would benefit Republicans in the exact same measure as it would Democrats. Also, your constitution was designed with tools to change it included. This all seems rather impotent, Cap'n.

Wow, you're certainly going a lot farther down a road of not traveled than I would credit you for.

1st let's get one thing straight. I am NOT a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I don't support either party blindly. I used to vote 3rd Party until I realized under our current system it was nothing but a wasted vote, as the two major Parties have things all sewn up.

Here is the difference.

IMO the Democrats are using every tool in the political book of dirty tricks to insure THEY are the sole Party able to maintain control from now on.

Every tactic so far has been to gain and maintain power. Stack the courts? No problem. Buy elections? No problem. Change the rules to give them all the advantages? No problem. Pander to the voters, without really giving them anything except handouts? No problem.

Meanwhile Trump will be President for another 4 months to 4 years depending on what occurs November 2020.

The kinds of changes the Democrats are pushing in law, in government, and in the Constitution are long-term to permanent.

They would make major changes in all aspects of our system that will echo down onto the rest of society in ways that Trump's short time in office would not; even if he won 4 more years come November.

It would be like a Party in power in your country trying to upend the system. Perhaps via some nonsense of changing how you vote, or making the Prime Minister a nationally elected position, or making it a lifetime position, etc.... seeking to change your foundational documents to do it.

I vote for Trump because he isn't really Democrat or Republican. He's a dark horse "independent" who managed to upset the apple carts of BOTH parties by getting elected.

Don't believe me? Just look back during the typical "honeymoon" period 2016 -2018 when the Republicans actually controlled both houses, and see how the old guard Republicans failed to support any of his polices. He was barely able to get that Tax Bill passed and then mostly thanks to the tea party Republicans in the House.
 
Last edited:
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.

“Good behaviour” that’s nice and vague. How would you feel if a Democratic senate removed Kavanagh and Barrett for bad behaviour such as voting against Roe v Wade, for example?
 
They're afraid they're losing their #1 baseball bat, the Supreme Court. So now they want to commit voter fraud to stuff ballots for their candidates so they can take over the govt in perpetuity. They want to make sure that there is zero resistance to their Marxist agenda..........just like Marxists always do. A term limited court can also be further corrupted to maintain power.
Give it a rest with the Marxist nonsense. Using such childish language makes your posts look ridiculous.
 
“Good behaviour” that’s nice and vague. How would you feel if a Democratic senate removed Kavanagh and Barrett for bad behaviour such as voting against Roe v Wade, for example?

Is the action "Constitutional?"

The House votes for a Bill of Impeachment. Then the Senate votes whether or not to impeach the accused.

Now the REAL question is, how would YOU feel if such a vote occurred based solely on a partisan view of the issue, and there was no real "bad behavior?"

Once again, one should look to the "originalist" view when the Constitution was being debated and the Amendments proposed.

Did the idea of "bad behavior" include "I don't agree with the ruling?" Or did it involve criminal or otherwise factual "bad behavior?" Like accepting bribes, abusing their office, etc.?

Meanwhile, Roe v. Wade in it's basics is accepted law and precedent. What can be ruled (unless there is a majority greater than that approving Roe) is how to interpret it's application in ways not already reviewed and decided as settled law.

IMO overturning Roe, at least in this "era," is about as likely as discovering a living civilization under the sands of Mars.
 
Is the action "Constitutional?"

The House votes for a Bill of Impeachment. Then the Senate votes whether or not to impeach the accused.

Now the REAL question is, how would YOU feel if such a vote occurred based solely on a partisan view of the issue, and there was no real "bad behavior?"

Once again, one should look to the "originalist" view when the Constitution was being debated and the Amendments proposed.

Did the idea of "bad behavior" include "I don't agree with the ruling?" Or did it involve criminal or otherwise factual "bad behavior?" Like accepting bribes, abusing their office, etc.?

Meanwhile, Roe v. Wade in it's basics is accepted law and precedent. What can be ruled (unless there is a majority greater than that approving Roe) is how to interpret it's application in ways not already reviewed and decided as settled law.

IMO overturning Roe, at least in this "era," is about as likely as discovering a living civilization under the sands of Mars.
Well “bad behaviour” is very vague. It’s a bit like the criteria for impeaching a president. Did the framers intentionally leave the wording vague? Was is just simply that the constitution was so riddled with compromise anyway that some things just were left as is? That’s the trouble I think with the idea that Jefferson, Adams, et al were some kind of all seeing, all knowing savants. They weren’t. The constitution is a remarkable document, particularly considering it was written when it was. However, in my opinion, it’s not without its flaws and is, in many ways, very much of its time.

As to your question, no I wouldn’t feel comfortable with Republicans removing Sotomayor for example. I can recognise my own bias in that because I wouldn’t be too bothered if the next Democrat senate removed Kavanagh. The shenanigans that have happened over these matters over the last decade is regrettable and I think the system may need an overhaul in these hyper partisan times. I would support term limits and rules on whether a president can definitively confirm someone or not, regardless of how much time is left in their term.

I hope you’re right about Roe v Wade. It’s just a bit nerve wracking when someone like Barrett may bring their views with them to the court. I may of course be doing her a disservice. Scaremongering about the perceived entrenched ideology of new justices rarely bears out.

For what’s it worth, I wouldn’t support Biden increasing the amount of justices.
 
Elections have consequences

If democrats win we will fix all the courts trump has appointed substandard ideological partisan judges to.
 
Back
Top Bottom