• 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 SCOTUS have term limits?

Should SCOTUS have term limits?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe/Other/I don't know/Something else


Results are only viewable after voting.
If the GOP keeps the Senate, it will behave like it did under Obama. Pass nothing, do nothing, and have shut downs. I want the government to work. I want the courts to be moderate. The courts are way too far right
That's a personal perspective which you're entitled to. I want some checks on the power of the political party in charge. I have no doubts if the Democrats win the presidency and if they take control of the senate, the filibuster, the last rights of the minority will be swept away. Now if the nuclear option hadn't be used, the precedence set by ex-democratic senate major leader Harry Reid, I'd be fine with one party in complete control. The senate could do it job of slowing things down and forcing a compromise, be a moderating influence. But Reid decided to strip away minority party rights because he could.

If he hadn't, you would still need 60 votes for cloture. Any SCOTUS would have to be acceptable to a certain amount of the minority party. It was a moderating influence which I'm all for. The Democrats could have easily stopped whoever Trump wants to appoint to the SCOTUS now and could have stopped Kavanaugh. The fact they can't, you can blame Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer who stood besides Reid pushing him all the way to utilize the nuclear option. This predicament is of the Democrats own making.

Now, I don't want this country to swing wildly to the left, then wildly to the right, one party passing all it can, then when the other party gains control, repealing everything the first party did and then passing everything it can only to have it repealed once the first party regains control.

I don't think that's good for the country. I'm all for things good for the country, America as a whole, whether that is good or bad for a political party, I don't care about that. My vote reflects the reality of today. In order to have just an iota of a check on the party that holds the presidency, the other party must control the house and or the senate.
 
Constitution says the remain " . . . on good behavior". I think lifetime appointment assures more consistency. The justices don't have to worry about pleasing any factions. Term limits on Senate and House is far more appealing.

Why would a judge with an 18 year term need to please any faction?
 
That's a personal perspective which you're entitled to. I want some checks on the power of the political party in charge. I have no doubts if the Democrats win the presidency and if they take control of the senate, the filibuster, the last rights of the minority will be swept away. Now if the nuclear option hadn't be used, the precedence set by ex-democratic senate major leader Harry Reid, I'd be fine with one party in complete control. The senate could do it job of slowing things down and forcing a compromise, be a moderating influence. But Reid decided to strip away minority party rights because he could.

If he hadn't, you would still need 60 votes for cloture. Any SCOTUS would have to be acceptable to a certain amount of the minority party. It was a moderating influence which I'm all for. The Democrats could have easily stopped whoever Trump wants to appoint to the SCOTUS now and could have stopped Kavanaugh. The fact they can't, you can blame Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer who stood besides Reid pushing him all the way to utilize the nuclear option. This predicament is of the Democrats own making.

Now, I don't want this country to swing wildly to the left, then wildly to the right, one party passing all it can, then when the other party gains control, repealing everything the first party did and then passing everything it can only to have it repealed once the first party regains control.

I don't think that's good for the country. I'm all for things good for the country, America as a whole, whether that is good or bad for a political party, I don't care about that. My vote reflects the reality of today. In order to have just an iota of a check on the party that holds the presidency, the other party must control the house and or the senate.

Wait just a minute, Reid did not use the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees, that was McConnell.
 
Wait just a minute, Reid did not use the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees, that was McConnell.
Only because he didn't get a chance.
 
Only because he didn't get a chance.

Reid could have eliminated it at the same time he eliminated filibusters for federal judges.
 
Reid could have eliminated it at the same time he eliminated filibusters for federal judges.
Wouldn't have made sense. There were no Supreme Court nominees at the time.
 
Wouldn't have made sense. There were no Supreme Court nominees at the time.

It was actively discussed and debated at the time.. This is not some big secret
 
It was actively discussed and debated at the time.. This is not some big secret
And it wouldn't have made sense, as there was no nominee at the time.
 
I don't know about term limits, but a maximum age limit I could stand behind.

Same goes for POTUS.
 
I don't know about term limits, but a maximum age limit I could stand behind.

Same goes for POTUS.

What would that age limit be?
 
Off the top of my head, 80.

But it's possible you could convince me a younger age would be better.

I don't think an age limit is appropriate so I wouldn't be trying to convince you.
 
I would oppose mandatory retirement ages...that amounts to age discrimination and loss of wisdom. Term limits would make SCOTUS appointments less high stakes. 16 years...that would be two 2-term presidents...and long enough for stability.
 
I would oppose mandatory retirement ages...that amounts to age discrimination and loss of wisdom. Term limits would make SCOTUS appointments less high stakes. 16 years...that would be two 2-term presidents...and long enough for stability.

At some point, ageism makes perfect sense when you're in a position to effect a few hundred million lives for possibly decades.

There's truly no need to elect an 85 year old to the Supreme Court.
 
That's a personal perspective which you're entitled to. I want some checks on the power of the political party in charge. I have no doubts if the Democrats win the presidency and if they take control of the senate, the filibuster, the last rights of the minority will be swept away. Now if the nuclear option hadn't be used, the precedence set by ex-democratic senate major leader Harry Reid, I'd be fine with one party in complete control. The senate could do it job of slowing things down and forcing a compromise, be a moderating influence. But Reid decided to strip away minority party rights because he could.

If he hadn't, you would still need 60 votes for cloture. Any SCOTUS would have to be acceptable to a certain amount of the minority party. It was a moderating influence which I'm all for. The Democrats could have easily stopped whoever Trump wants to appoint to the SCOTUS now and could have stopped Kavanaugh. The fact they can't, you can blame Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer who stood besides Reid pushing him all the way to utilize the nuclear option. This predicament is of the Democrats own making.

Now, I don't want this country to swing wildly to the left, then wildly to the right, one party passing all it can, then when the other party gains control, repealing everything the first party did and then passing everything it can only to have it repealed once the first party regains control.

I don't think that's good for the country. I'm all for things good for the country, America as a whole, whether that is good or bad for a political party, I don't care about that. My vote reflects the reality of today. In order to have just an iota of a check on the party that holds the presidency, the other party must control the house and or the senate.
I am not old enough nor followed politics long enough to know the history of these fights. I know I want the government to work, and it does not appear to work with a McConnell in charge of the senate and this is with the filibuster, right?

I am not convinced how things could get better in this state
 
At some point, ageism makes perfect sense when you're in a position to effect a few hundred million lives for possibly decades.

There's truly no need to elect an 85 year old to the Supreme Court.

because......?

And, for the record, you said 80 or maybe younger.
 
Well lets take a look at the justices currently on the bench and when they would have termed out..

Justice Thomas... sworn in as justice in 1991... would have termed out in 2009... Obama would have nominated his replacement.
Justice Breyer... sworn in as justice in 1994.... would have termed out in 2012... Obama would have nominated his replacement.
Justice Scalia... sworn in as justice in 1986... would have termed out in 2004... GW Bush would have nominated his replacement.

Justice Kennedy (the seat now held by Kavanaugh)... sworn in as a justice in 1987... would have termed out in 2005... Gw Bush would have nominated his replacement..
Justice Ginsberg... sworn in as a justice in 1993... would have termed out in 2011... Obama would have nominated her replacement.

Yes .. exactly. Although it becomes a domino effect the further back in time we go.
 
because......?

And, for the record, you said 80 or maybe younger.

Because when your facing death every day your perspective changes dramatically.

If you think ageism is wrong the age I pick doesn't matter.
 
I would oppose mandatory retirement ages...that amounts to age discrimination and loss of wisdom. Term limits would make SCOTUS appointments less high stakes. 16 years...that would be two 2-term presidents...and long enough for stability.
At some point, ageism makes perfect sense when you're in a position to effect a few hundred million lives for possibly decades.

There's truly no need to elect an 85 year old to the Supreme Court.
Why, exactly, assuming that person is otherwise fit and competent?
 
Because when your facing death every day your perspective changes dramatically.

If you think ageism is wrong the age I pick doesn't matter.

Is that a bad thing?
 
Because when your facing death every day your perspective changes dramatically.

If you think ageism is wrong the age I pick doesn't matter.

But it matters when we're talking about your opinion since that's your position. If you think anyone "facing death every day" should be excluded from being elected President or appointed to SCOTUS, then you'd have to exclude people for more than just age. Current diseases, history of illness, overweight, family history of early death, smoker, drinker, etc. Are you willing to go down that rabbit hole?
 
It would, but it would lead to escalation. The Democrats could expand it to 11 or 13 whatever. Then when the GOP gains control, the presidency, senate and the house, they'll expand it to 15 or 17 or whatever number to suit their ideological bent. It's like ex-democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option. McConnell escalated it, expanded it to include the SCOTUS one the GOP gained the power to do so.

After awhile we'll have 25 justices on the SCOTUS, then 49 and so on. Each side will do what it can. Whether it is right or wrong, each will do whatever it can to gain a political advantage.

If Democrats gain power this November and pass HR1, they would eliminate the ability of Republicans to "win" elections through voter suppression. Republicans would be forced to win elections through the superiority of their ideas, like Democrats have to. If Republicans can win under those circumstances, then they deserve to do what they want with the courts.

As it stands the point is moot because Republicans have structured things so that even if Democrats won the White House and every single seat in both chambers of Congress, none of their bills would survive court challenges, especially HR1. Democrats won't have a choice but to expand the courts.
 
I don't know, but maybe a mandatory retirement age. 85. 90. Or maybe not.
 
Back
Top Bottom