Democrats Seek to set SCOTUS term limits.

[Crovax]

Then back down to 15 with all the newbies cut when the Dems regain control!

Lifetime appointment, otherwise the GOP would just cut it back to 9

 

[Greenbeard]

Lifetime appointment, otherwise the GOP would just cut it back to 9

Darn, I guess we'll just have to keep adding!

 

[Cameron]

Term limits don't solve the partisan issue, it only makes the court more volatile. What they need to do is come up with some process to make sure only moderates are nominated/confirmed. A bipartisan panel must approve nominees, etc.

 

[OlNate]

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

Meh...I'm comfortable there.

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.

Mmmm...ok, fair enough... I mean, I could debate based on your post history, but, alright. I'll respect your right to define yourself as you like.

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.

I'm sorry, Trump has never once committed to respecting the election outcome, should it result in him losing. He has done everything he can to destroy the credibility of your election process. He has "jokingly" thrown around the idea of a third term. His latest appointment to SC is clearly an effort to support his bid to win 2020 at any cost. I mean, I will admit, Trump does not have enough understanding of the constitution to attempt to use the tools therein to maintain power, but please, do not tell me you actually think Trump isn't doing the exact same thing - trying to hold onto power. Like, seriously, you're going to suggest that Trump doesn't pander to voters? lol C'mon Cap'n. You can't treat it differently just because you're the one being pandered to.

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.

Long-term? Sure, everything about your constitution takes a long time. Permanent? Nope. The same tools they are using to change things can be used again. It's the beauty of your constitution...it can adapt. The people who wrote it were really smart that way. You shouldn't be so afraid of it.

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.

Well..this point will probably hold less water than you hoped. Canadians are highly open to voting reform, in fact it's one of the main point to's for leftists pissed off with Trudeau - he promised to change it and didn't follow through. Changing our voting system is just a matter of time. Also, we do not have term limits for Prime Ministers - as long as they have the votes, they continue to do the job. Canadians aren't afraid of change that benefits them. Like term limits on your SC judges would benefit you.

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.

Yeah, and how's that working out for you? Your country is sick and on fire and has become the joke of the world, under your "dark horse". I suspect Lost Cause fallacy at play here, as you're too smart not to notice.

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.

Because his policies are suicidal. As has been demonstrated. His administration has been a total failure. If that's what you want to vote for, then I respect your right to do so, even if I fail to understand why you ever would.

 

[ClaraD]

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.

The whining has already started and we are just weeks from the election. No Democrat thinks the rule will be eternal, but they will now have time to address errors so that it does not happen again. One, increasing the Supreme Court, if Barrett is jammed through and perhaps even if not, because the court needs to handle more cases and they need term limits of 18 years, limits on how many nominees and rules on hearings for nominees. A change in number after this point should require a 3/4 majority vote to remove the rules for judge and supreme court nominees.

 

[Top Cat]

 

[smallvoice]

Then back down to 15 with all the newbies cut when the Dems regain control!

You won't be "cutting any newbies". The Constitution has a procedure for that. You do, at least, know that, don't you?
Dims won't win anyway, Americans are too smart to let Kamrada be in charge.

 

[upsideguy]

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 Republicans played hardball with the Garland/Gorsuch pick, changing the rules/norms multiple times in the process. Turnabout is fairplay.

That said, we should have a 15 member SCOTUS with 20 year terms. This would mean a good turnover of the court and remove much of the politics from the process. This politics has been the root of much of our division.

No one intended the court to be political. It should not have a "right" or "left" lean.

The Reps had an opportunity to do this is a more bi-partisan way; they chose not to. The consequences are appropriate.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The Republicans played hardball with the Garland/Gorsuch pick, changing the rules/norms multiple times in the process.

WRONG!

Really, study the Constitution, look at past history...what they did was fully within the scope of their Constitutional powers. The "NORM" is that more often than not, when the Senate is controlled by a different Party than the President, they might not agree with nominations. The "NORM" is that when the President and the Senate are of the same Party, the nominations are usually approved. The "NORM" is that the President is in office for the entire 4 year term, and several past nominations have been made and approved shortly before the November election.

Turnabout is fairplay.

Really? When did the Republican's vote to "stack the Court" in order to increase the number of Justices so they could "control it?"

That said, we should have a 15 member SCOTUS with 20 year terms. This would mean a good turnover of the court and remove much of the politics from the process. This politics has been the root of much of our division.

There is no valid reason for either of these suggestions. They are simply attempts to justify Democrat stacking. The problem is the same as when the Democrats in their hubris changed the Senate rules eliminating the requirement for a 60 vote confirmation which has allowed the current situation to occur. Do this now when they think they have the "upper hand," and you open the door to some future Party that takes control to stack the Court with more of THEIR partisan Judges...on and on until we have a SCOTUS so large it becomes worthless.

No one intended the court to be political. It should not have a "right" or "left" lean.

And yet you and the Democrats are arguing to make it just that. The argument between "originalist" and "activist" appointments is the issue. If you had a Court whose 9 members were appointed as intended, i.e. to not only uphold the law, but to do so by interpreting it's Constitutionality based on the ideals espoused by the Founders? Then you would have a just Court doing exactly what it was intended, to be a non-partisan process of judicial review and it would not matter which Party appointed the Judge.

The Reps had an opportunity to do this is a more bi-partisan way; they chose not to. The consequences are appropriate.

The "consequences" affect US ALL, not just "the Republicans." Did the Democrats, despite being warned by the Republicans, care when they ended the 60 vote to confirm rule? Now you support them doubling down by screwing with the Court?

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

Oh, you mean like the GOP changing the Senate rules for a removal of office of Trump so that no witnesses could testify?

Like when the GOP changed the rules during Obama's administration by denying him a Supreme Court justice pick because it was too close to the election....and then change the rules back when they try to pack the court, right before an election?

Or how about the back and forth over filibusters when it proves to be against GOP interests?

Or how about years of GOP obstructionism during Obama's administration, yet when the left does the same thing, suddenly its unfair?

I can go on and on about the GOP acting like "spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way." Or how about your precious snowflake of a president? He's been flip flopping this whole damn time when he can't get his way!!!!

You don't the moral or ethical right to wag your finger at us, buddy. You lost that right when you elected Trump and supported the anti-American GOP!

 

[Drawdown]

Shame they don't put term limits on themselves.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh, you mean like the GOP changing the Senate rules for a removal of office of Trump so that no witnesses could testify?

Like when the GOP changed the rules during Obama's administration by denying him a Supreme Court justice pick because it was too close to the election....and then change the rules back when they try to pack the court, right before an election?

Or how about the back and forth over filibusters when it proves to be against GOP interests?

Or how about years of GOP obstructionism during Obama's administration, yet when the left does the same thing, suddenly its unfair?

I can go on and on about the GOP acting like "spoiled children, who will pout, scream, stomp their feet, and demand they have their way." Or how about your precious snowflake of a president? He's been flip flopping this whole damn time when he can't get his way!!!!

You don't the moral or ethical right to wag your finger at us, buddy. You lost that right when you elected Trump and supported the anti-American GOP!

LOL

1. There are no hard and fast "rules for witnesses to testify" during an impeachment vote. The Senate can do it any way they want.

2. The Senate has the absolute power to confirm or deny appointments to office; and how they do it is entirely up to them. I've pointed this out time and again. They can hold lengthy hearings; they can hold abbreviated hearings; they can hold no hearings and either vote by acclamation, or just do nothing until the President withdraws the nomination and submits a new one. In which case all those options still remain available.

3. BOTH Parties argue over the value of the filibuster from time to time.

4. BOTH Parties do their best to "obstruct" efforts by the other Party when it comes to issues/actions they oppose. That's politics.

None of those "accusations" equate to trying to change the rules, they have always been options for either party to use when they hold all the cards.

On the other hand, trying to undermine the SCOTUS via term/age/etc. limits would require a Constitutional Amendment. Trying to "stack the court" by appointing as many judges as a Party wants to insure their power goes unchallenged is trying to change the rules by completely undermining the purpose of SCOTUS. Trying to get mass-mail voting rushed through because a Party thinks it might help their chances to get elected, despite all the problems it is showing it will cause is changing the rules.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have already demonstrated how doing this kind of stuff is short-sighted by the example already available, when they were "in power" and got rid of the rule requiring 60 votes to confirm appointments. If they had not gotten rid of that rule for political "expedience" the Republican's would not be able to confirm any of the Justices they have without "following the rules."

Try again?

 

[Gaius46]

15 with six Biden appointments should square things up nicely.

until the Republicans are back in power and they boost it 19 And then the democrats boost it to 23 and soon the SC is the size of the Congress. Packing the court is one of the most spectacularly stupid ideas out there.

 

[element94]

Really, study the Constitution, look at past history...what they did was fully within the scope of their Constitutional powers. The "NORM" is that more often than not, when the Senate is controlled by a different Party than the President, they might not agree with nominations. The "NORM" is that when the President and the Senate are of the same Party, the nominations are usually approved. The "NORM" is that the President is in office for the entire 4 year term, and several past nominations have been made and approved shortly before the November election.

Good points.
What are your thoughts on the republican majority Senate not allowing firsthand witnesses to testify under oath in the Trump Impeachment trial?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Good points.
What are your thoughts on the republican majority Senate not allowing firsthand witnesses to testify under oath in the Trump Impeachment trial?

I agreed with them.

Why? IMO the "charges" were BS. The entire Impeachment attempt was (IMO) a partisan effort to "keep their promise" to those who elected them to impeach Trump, and they were willing to do it by hook or crook.

Those "witnesses" were witness to nothing. Every one of them had already testified as to their "knowledge" in public hearings. I know, I watched them. There was no "There, there."

Meanwhile, there is more evidence of Biden's "quid pro quo" (actually admitted on video) and influence peddling on behalf of his son Hunter not only in Ukraine, but China, and Russia.

Last point. This effort to impeach was occurring at a time when we were starting to hear about the possible outbreak in China, and that impeachment was tying up both our attention and that of Trump's Administration.

IMO had it not occurred, things might have gone differently with Trump able to focus on the China Virus.

 

[Marco Montana]

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.

Pretty sure that require Amending the Constitution that would require 2/3rds Majority from the States. Not happening.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

What rules were changed by democrats?

 

[bomberfox]

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

Not really. Whataboutism is a worse hypocrisy.

 

[Roadvirus]

Congressional term limits first.

I doubt the Dems will agree to that. They love power too much.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

This is what the democrats have been doing for decades. Through the courts and liberal judges they have tried to change laws they don't have the votes to change in the Congress. This is what is wrong with the democrats. We have laws, and a system that they only embrace when it suits them.

 

[pamak]

This is some dumbass shit no matter who supports it.

The entire reason for the court is to provide stability.

The entire reason for any branch of a representative government and for the judicial branch is to reflect the will of the society. Stability that preserves oudated social beliefs about people's personal life (marriage, sex, abortions, etc) will inevitably trigger a reaction.

 

[pamak]

until the Republicans are back in power and they boost it 19 And then the democrats boost it to 23 and soon the SC is the size of the Congress. Packing the court is one of the most spectacularly stupid ideas out there.

This will force some type of legislative compromise eventually which will be better than the long-term domination of the Supreme Court by extremely social conservatives.

 

[Jack Hays]

Adding justices to the Supreme Court would destroy it
Democratic overreaction to Republican hypocrisy could ruin the last functioning branch of government.

• By Kathleen Parker

 

[Buckeyes85]

LOL

1. There are no hard and fast "rules for witnesses to testify" during an impeachment vote. The Senate can do it any way they want.

2. The Senate has the absolute power to confirm or deny appointments to office; and how they do it is entirely up to them. I've pointed this out time and again. They can hold lengthy hearings; they can hold abbreviated hearings; they can hold no hearings and either vote by acclamation, or just do nothing until the President withdraws the nomination and submits a new one. In which case all those options still remain available.

3. BOTH Parties argue over the value of the filibuster from time to time.

4. BOTH Parties do their best to "obstruct" efforts by the other Party when it comes to issues/actions they oppose. That's politics.

None of those "accusations" equate to trying to change the rules, they have always been options for either party to use when they hold all the cards.

On the other hand, trying to undermine the SCOTUS via term/age/etc. limits would require a Constitutional Amendment. Trying to "stack the court" by appointing as many judges as a Party wants to insure their power goes unchallenged is trying to change the rules by completely undermining the purpose of SCOTUS. Trying to get mass-mail voting rushed through because a Party thinks it might help their chances to get elected, despite all the problems it is showing it will cause is changing the rules.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have already demonstrated how doing this kind of stuff is short-sighted by the example already available, when they were "in power" and got rid of the rule requiring 60 votes to confirm appointments. If they had not gotten rid of that rule for political "expedience" the Republican's would not be able to confirm any of the Justices they have without "following the rules."

Try again?

Your version of what is the "norm" seems to be whatever the constitution permits congress to do, which of course includes their ability increase the number of justices on the supreme court. And of course, for the first 80 years of the country, the number was not 9.
That said, I do agree with those who suggest increasing the number sets a bad precedent to be followed by whomever happens to be in the majority at the time.

 

[Rich2018]

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

LOL

Trump didn't get what he wanted in the recent election...IDK he is a Democrat either...and seemingly he wants to change the system on who votes.