• 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!

WaPo calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices

Schism said:
using the Yahoo! link because WaPo is behind a paywall for many -

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices


Notice that WaPo isn't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that Democrats aren't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that WaPo and Democrats are looking for ways to hold absolute power.
Click to expand...
????
such hyperbolic dramatics lol

anyway when it comes to SCOTUS what I would like to see are some real genuine basic requirements, right now there arent any
Id say at least
Law degree
experience as a litigator for 5 years
experience as a sitting judge/magistrate for 7 years (at least 2 full years at a state level)
Minimum age 35


after that, if we are picking the right people, lean shouldn't be a factor and they should just be good at their jobs so limits don't much concern me. If its too small i think it could be MORE political and it shouldn't.

Now with that said I wouldn't fight against them of course but they could be something large as far as im concerned like 24 years (6 presidential terms) and a mandatory retirement age of 70.

now as far as term limits for congress, absolutely if we arent really going to take big money out of it which congress won't do bt I also doubt they will give themselves limits.
THis is what I like to see fixed. I have no clue how to fix it but IMO Congress shouldn't get to decide things that directly affect them like their salaries, their healthcare if its ONLY for them, their terms etc etc . . . whats their motivation to do it fairly. Its almost like we need another body that only deals with that stuff.

Anyway congress is a big job and it requires time, so I've changed views on this a few times. I think high turnover rate would hurt things because so many things would get back burnered or lost in the shuffle or money would magically get lost and we already do that now. So my limits would be big

Representatives 2 year terms, max 10 (20 yrs 5 presidential terms)
Senators 4 year terms, max 6 (24yrs 5 Presidential Terms)

what about a system that you cant be a member of the us congress without first being a member of state congress? good or bad? I think it would filter deals down to the people better.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The only real division (IMO again) is between those appointed who consider the Constitution a "living document" and thus re-interpretable as the politics change; and those who view it's meanings as "originally" envisioned by the authors.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is a living document. Your disdain for that fact doesn’t make the fact any less true.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Thomas Jefferson
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Excuse me, but we just lived through the last 5 years. Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have. My point stands.

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Why would that change if they were term-limited?
Click to expand...

Term limits merely mean they can seek re-appointment at the end of said term. Thus making them more desirous, especially as their terms come closer to the end...to make rulings which could get them re-appointed.

But even were this not true, and instead it allows them to run for political office, how much MORE "political" would they be before their term ends in order to prepare for a State Office, Congressional, Senatorial, or Presidential seat?
 
Captain Adverse said:
But even were this not true, and instead it allows them to run for political office, how much MORE "political" would they be before their term ends in order to prepare for a State Office, Congressional, Senatorial, or Presidential seat?
Click to expand...

They already can retire and run for political office - if that's what they wanted to do. Why would they want to?
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO the stability of the SCOTUS, and thus the laws reviewed and unreviewed, means the stability of the Nation.

The fact that the Justices are seated for life terms (or until they voluntarily resign) allows people to feel a sense of permanency in the Law and the Constitution.

If Justices are given "term limits" then IMO it would become another political tool of whichever Party controls the Presidency and the Senate.

As well, people would lose faith in the Law, and the Constitution, as it becomes the playthings of whichever Party holds power.
Click to expand...

I hope your will remember this in the next eight years when Biden nominates supreme court justices... There is no more filibuster on supreme court nominees....
 
BlueTex said:
I hope your will remember this in the next eight years when Biden nominates supreme court justices... There is no more filibuster on supreme court nominees....
Click to expand...

My view on this subject is not "political." Not unless the SCOTUS actually becomes "politicized," for example by efforts to increase the number and "pack" the Court with truly partisan appointees. At that point I will consider exactly what I stated, i.e. lose all faith in the system and owe it no more allegiance.

I don't think I'd be the only one.
 
Captain Adverse said:
My view on this subject is not "political." Not unless the SCOTUS actually becomes "politicized," for example by efforts to increase the number and "pack" the Court with truly partisan appointees. At that point I will consider exactly what I stated, i.e. lose all faith in the system and owe it no more allegiance.

I don't think I'd be the only one.
Click to expand...

No one in the right mind believes the process isn't already political - particularly after the last 5 years. Absent entirely political maneuvering in the Senate, Trump would have had one SCOTUS pick, not 3.
 
Captain Adverse said:
At that point I will consider exactly what I stated, i.e. lose all faith in the system and owe it no more allegiance
Click to expand...

Why do you think half the country wants Biden to pack the court, or adopt term limits?

It's because they've already lost faith in the system, as it exists today.
 
Captain Adverse said:
My view on this subject is not "political." Not unless the SCOTUS actually becomes "politicized," for example by efforts to increase the number and "pack" the Court with truly partisan appointees. At that point I will consider exactly what I stated, i.e. lose all faith in the system and owe it no more allegiance.

I don't think I'd be the only one.
Click to expand...

Did you support the nomination of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Why do you think half the country wants Biden to pack the court, or adopt term limits?

It's because they've already lost faith in the system, as it exists today.
Click to expand...

...And the other half still have faith UNTIL what you talk about comes to pass.

What happens THEN? Civil war?
 
Schism said:
using the Yahoo! link because WaPo is behind a paywall for many -

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices


Notice that WaPo isn't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that Democrats aren't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that WaPo and Democrats are looking for ways to hold absolute power.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings about term limits for any of them. Good arguements both for against can be made.
 
bongsaway said:
I'm for term limits for any and all politicians. I agree reducing the sc terms to eighteen years is good. Every elected congressperson should have no more than eight years in government which means for those who do not understand, senators get two four year terms. And finally once out of government, no lobbying for your lifetime.
Click to expand...
Would you put term limits on staffers too?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Why does your faith in the system mean more than anyone else's?
Click to expand...

Non Sequitur.

I do not agree with your premise that more people lack faith than have it.

IMO most people retain faith in the system as is. That it is the Leftist firebrands who think like you.

This was true back when FDR tried the same Court packing nonsense, and IMO it is the same today.

So I don't agree with your premise that "half" want the SCOTUS "packed."

But if it is true, and people come to believe the system is no longer operating as it should be? History is replete with examples of how this could turn out.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO most people retain faith in the system as is. That it is the Leftist firebrands who think like you.
Click to expand...

You understand that in the context of a debate, your opinion that you're right is meaningless, right?

Of course you think you're right. I think you're wrong. Why should your feelings matter?
 
Schism said:
using the Yahoo! link because WaPo is behind a paywall for many -

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices


Notice that WaPo isn't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that Democrats aren't calling for Congressional term-limits.

Notice that WaPo and Democrats are looking for ways to hold absolute power.
Click to expand...

What we need more so are age limits on both Congress, President and SCOTUS.
We also need the age minimums raised for all three branches.

For example, a 25 year old (rep) in this day and age is inevitably an imbecile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom