Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Crazy Anti-Constitutional Demoncrats

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crazy Anti-Constitutional Demoncrats

    I don't see anything in Article III that would even vaguely hint this is permissible: Democrat Bill Would Impose Term Limits On SCOTUS Justices, Mandatory Replacements Every Two Years

    It would probably be entertaining to see it pass, immediately be challenged at SCOTUS... by SCOTUS?... get shot down, and then have the leftards have a big insurrection over SCOTUS daring to knock it down.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

  • #2
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I don't see anything in Article III that would even vaguely hint this is permissible: Democrat Bill Would Impose Term Limits On SCOTUS Justices, Mandatory Replacements Every Two Years

    It would probably be entertaining to see it pass, immediately be challenged at SCOTUS... by SCOTUS?... get shot down, and then have the leftards have a big insurrection over SCOTUS daring to knock it down.
    So, if it were passed the judges on the court would have to be grandfathered in since they were appointed before the law and still serve for life. But any judges they appoint after the law passed would be for two years. When the Republicans regain control they return it to life-long appointments, and replace any judges the Democrats put on the bench as their term expires with judges that serve for life.

    Do they ever think their insane ravings through... Check that. Insane ravings, by definition, aren't thought through.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      So, if it were passed the judges on the court would have to be grandfathered in since they were appointed before the law and still serve for life. But any judges they appoint after the law passed would be for two years. When the Republicans regain control they return it to life-long appointments, and replace any judges the Democrats put on the bench as their term expires with judges that serve for life.

      Do they ever think their insane ravings through... Check that. Insane ravings, by definition, aren't thought through.
      Article III specifies that the Justices serve "during good Behavior." There is no provision for ending their service except perhaps impeachment. So no law passed by Congress could remove them, unless it did something patently silly like explicitly defining "good Behavior" to include "holding office for 18 years or less."
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

        Article III specifies that the Justices serve "during good Behavior." There is no provision for ending their service except perhaps impeachment. So no law passed by Congress could remove them, unless it did something patently silly like explicitly defining "good Behavior" to include "holding office for 18 years or less."
        Generally their proposals keep them serving, but as lower court justices, as they believe that satisfies the constitution they are trying to work around.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

          Article III specifies that the Justices serve "during good Behavior." There is no provision for ending their service except perhaps impeachment. So no law passed by Congress could remove them, unless it did something patently silly like explicitly defining "good Behavior" to include "holding office for 18 years or less."
          That's why I'm saying such a law wouldn't affect justices already on the bench.

          As for Article III, that does not seem to establish any length for the term but rather states that however long it is that the judges “shall hold their office during good behavior.”

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            There wasn't anything in the constitution about Presidential term limits until they added it (22nd Amendment.)

            They could add a term limit to SCOTUS through an amendment (which would be hard to pass, though) and once in it would be nearly impossible to remove.
            Two years seems awfully short though. And I think they should pass term limits on Congress first.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              There wasn't anything in the constitution about Presidential term limits until they added it (22nd Amendment.)

              They could add a term limit to SCOTUS through an amendment (which would be hard to pass, though) and once in it would be nearly impossible to remove.
              Two years seems awfully short though. And I think they should pass term limits on Congress first.
              Right, that was my thinking: That the only way to set or change limits would be by Amendment, not legislation.

              In principle, I am not *totally* against the idea of doing something to limit the power of the judiciary a bit, relative to the elected branches.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #8
                Turley calls the bill "little more than legislative graffiti."
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  Turley calls the bill "little more than legislative graffiti."
                  sounds about right. Congresspeople like to draft legislation as virtue signalling, even when it has no chance of passing. Both sides do it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                    Right, that was my thinking: That the only way to set or change limits would be by Amendment, not legislation.

                    In principle, I am not *totally* against the idea of doing something to limit the power of the judiciary a bit, relative to the elected branches.
                    One of the better Ideas I saw was a Constitutional amendment that stated all structural changes to the size of the supreme court must have a 10 year waiting list before coming into effect.

                    This prevents exactly what the democrats trying (or FDR tried) to do, adding seats to the court so that the current administration can pack it with justices that side with them. Instead, a court that needs changes can have legislation passed, and the administration will be out of power (and uncertain which party will have it) when those changes take effect.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      One of the better Ideas I saw was a Constitutional amendment that stated all structural changes to the size of the supreme court must have a 10 year waiting list before coming into effect.

                      This prevents exactly what the democrats trying (or FDR tried) to do, adding seats to the court so that the current administration can pack it with justices that side with them. Instead, a court that needs changes can have legislation passed, and the administration will be out of power (and uncertain which party will have it) when those changes take effect.
                      I like that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Democrats refuse to try to do it the honest way; get the Constitution amended to fit their desires.

                        I wouldn't be opposed to term limits, but 2 years is ridiculous. Maybe something like 10 or 15 years.
                        "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
                        "
                        Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          One of the better Ideas I saw was a Constitutional amendment that stated all structural changes to the size of the supreme court must have a 10 year waiting list before coming into effect.

                          This prevents exactly what the democrats trying (or FDR tried) to do, adding seats to the court so that the current administration can pack it with justices that side with them. Instead, a court that needs changes can have legislation passed, and the administration will be out of power (and uncertain which party will have it) when those changes take effect.
                          As has been said before, when the Democrats are in control, the act like they will be in control forever.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                            Democrats refuse to try to do it the honest way; get the Constitution amended to fit their desires.

                            I wouldn't be opposed to term limits, but 2 years is ridiculous. Maybe something like 10 or 15 years.
                            Actually the bill sets the limit at 18 years, at which time the Justice will be "deemed" to have retired. POTUS will nominate one new Justice in the first and third years after every Presidential election, and when confirmed, each of those nominees will replace in sequence the longest-serving Justices who have over 18 years of service.

                            I'm not sure what happens when they reach a point where no Justices have over 18 years of service, but it is time to appoint a new one.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                              Actually the bill sets the limit at 18 years, at which time the Justice will be "deemed" to have retired. POTUS will nominate one new Justice in the first and third years after every Presidential election, and when confirmed, each of those nominees will replace in sequence the longest-serving Justices who have over 18 years of service.

                              I'm not sure what happens when they reach a point where no Justices have over 18 years of service, but it is time to appoint a new one.
                              seems way over complicated.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 12:39 PM
                              10 responses
                              73 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Starlight, 08-11-2022, 01:26 AM
                              95 responses
                              525 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Bill the Cat, 08-09-2022, 12:30 PM
                              52 responses
                              331 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by Sparko, 08-09-2022, 10:43 AM
                              22 responses
                              155 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by firstfloor, 08-09-2022, 03:17 AM
                              56 responses
                              339 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Working...
                              X