Comgressional term limits are a paradox. Not to mention they are against the constitution and fly in the face of the founders intent.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.
"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.
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.
IF they pull that off, they need to recognize that the limits work on their folks, too.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.
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.
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.
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.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...
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.
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.
Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits.
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.
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.
“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?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.
Give it a rest with the Marxist nonsense. Using such childish language makes your posts look ridiculous.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.
“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?
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.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.
15 with six Biden appointments should square things up nicely.
and then 30 next time the GOP gets control
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?