• 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!

Should 'for life' positions exist in american politics?

I think not. In my mind, a for life position invites arrogance and corruption.

I think 14 year terms for Federal Article III judges with the possibility of a second appointment to the bench is just fine. This is what is done for bankruptcy judges and it works just fine.
 
Last edited:

Should 'for life' positions exist in american politics?​



Probably not. But replacing them is tricky if it's an appointed position, rather than an elected one.
 
The Republican Party, in their 'Contract with America', certainly didn't think so for de facto positions in the US legislator. The contract called for term limits. The Republican Party, when in control of the legislature, did not honor their contract.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
 
I think 14 year terms for Federal Article III judges with the possibility of a second appointment to the bench is just fine. This is what is done for bankruptcy judges and it works just fine.
I think 4-6 year terms max and only two consecutive.
 
Not anymore. We see what happens when loons get a life long position. It's too dangerous.
 
NO.

That's why the two terms for President is fine. (Otherwise, we all know who would be President now.)

In fact, maybe a one term of six years (as is the case in the United States of Mexico) is better.

Supreme Court Justices (and maybe ALL judges) should never be on the bench for more than 20 years.

And there should be term limits for every elective position. A certain gentleman from Delaware served much too long in the Senate. Just as a certain young(-looking) lady from California in the House needs to pack it in.
 
NO.

That's why the two terms for President is fine.

In fact, maybe a one term of six years (as is the case in the United States of Mexico) is better.

Supreme Court Justices (and maybe ALL justices) should never be on the bench for more than 20 years.

And there should be term limits for every elective position. A certain gentleman from Delaware served much too long in the Senate. Just as a certain young(-looking) lady from California in the House needs to pack it in.
Congressional term limits violate the constitution. Are you a gun grabber too?
 
Congressional term limits violate the constitution. Are you a gun grabber too?
Then change the Constitution.

If you mean by "gun grabber" someone who wants to take away guns, heck no!

If more predators feared that prospective victims had guns, maybe even those dimwitted predators might think twice before committing mayhem.
 
I think not. In my mind, a for life position invites arrogance and corruption.
And Clarence Thomas is the poster child.
When you have a politcal party, the Republicans, trying unsuccessfully (for now) to install Trump as president for life, it's time to review other for-life positions. You'll probably never get enough votes to stop it though.
There is already a means of removal, Impeachment, for those violating their oaths, committing judicial malfeasance, making politically partisan decisions etc. but that is as big a joke as impeachment of a president, unless your party has a 67 majority in the Senate.
 
Back
Top Bottom