Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme
Court justice terms to 18 years
Reuters,
by
Andrew Chung
Original Article
Posted By: hammondb3,
9/25/2020 9:29:58 AM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.
The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jasonB 9/25/2020 9:52:28 AM (No. 551850)
"6 yr. Old Screams, Cries and Demands to Change the Rules of Game They Lost".
16 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Namma 9/25/2020 9:53:09 AM (No. 551851)
congress should limit themselves
44 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
cor-vet 9/25/2020 9:55:30 AM (No. 551854)
Time for a Crenshaw or Jordan to slip in an amendment term limiting congress!
31 people like this.
In theory I think term limiting judges (and congress) is not such a bad idea. Though I'm sure since this proposal is coming from the left there is some nefarious reasoning behind it.
The whole idea behind lifetime appointments is to supposedly remove the pressure of bending with the popular will in order to retain your position. The theory was that a judge would be freer to rule as he/she sees to be proper regardless of the prevailing opinions and politics of the day. That would still be true even if the judge's term had a set end date.
But again, I consider this proposal very suspicious due to its source.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
stevendm 9/25/2020 10:11:22 AM (No. 551868)
If passed, this would initially knock off one democrat and one republican nominated justice. Ok, that sounds fair. But the next two, coming up in a few years would know out two republican nominated justices. Hmmm. No need to pack the court, just wait a few years.
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
golden 9/25/2020 10:14:30 AM (No. 551875)
Start with congress and the senate. The whole purpose of a life appointment is so that judges would not be political partial. But hey I digress.
15 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
ussjimmycarter 9/25/2020 10:17:51 AM (No. 551879)
LOL...LOL...LOL... Trump has finally pushed them all off the sanity cliff and they are in free fall screaming like 5 year old school girls on the way down. Hey democRATs...BOOO...TRUMP...MAGA!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
AlpineLace 9/25/2020 10:30:42 AM (No. 551897)
OK, so they are preparing a Constitutional Amendment to term limit the Supreme Court?
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
HotRod 9/25/2020 10:32:19 AM (No. 551899)
Change the laws, move the goal posts... Whenever the democrats are losing, they want to change things they think will be to their advantage.
Who could support a political party that is so dishonest? We are seeing them every night in the news.
11 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Nimby 9/25/2020 10:34:14 AM (No. 551904)
1. DOA.
2. Cutting their nose to spite the face- Harry Reid, anyone?
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Heil Liberals 9/25/2020 10:35:03 AM (No. 551906)
Their bill is a worthless as the idea it contains and the paper it's written on. The only way to change the Supreme Court is by Amendment. It's a dog whistle to the loony left that this is the next chant they need during the next riot.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
marbles 9/25/2020 10:46:36 AM (No. 551919)
The only reason they're doing this is because they know that they're going to lose the election and they want to dump Thomas and Alito . Democrats always change the rules when they lose.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
lakerman1 9/25/2020 10:47:27 AM (No. 551922)
not completely correct, #12. congress determines the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and doesn't need a constitutional amendment.
Limiting a President as proposed would take a constitutional amendment, as would limiting the length of service for justices.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 9/25/2020 10:59:20 AM (No. 551940)
I guess their demands to stack the court aren't working so they are going for plan #2. No matter that it isn't kosher with the constitution, they are going to spin their wheels like they did for impeachment. It is all fodder for their base to fool them into voting for them yet again.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Foghorn 9/25/2020 11:01:54 AM (No. 551945)
Another useless bill that is wasting time and money. Eighteen year limitation. The Court usually has persons nominated to the Court at around 50 to 55 years old. That means the judge would retire and 68 or 73. What difference is that now? If they can term limit a SCOTUS Justice, then why not term limits for politicians in Congres. At this time over 300 have over 20 years in office and over 100 have 30 years in office. It's time for term limits on the Senate and the House. Senator Byrd was over 90 years old when he retired. What's the age of those in office now and they want to limit SCOTUS Justices?
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 9/25/2020 11:03:14 AM (No. 551948)
I would support a mandatory retirement age (say 80) for SCOTUS justices, senators, and Congress. There is no excuse for Diane Feinstein (who even the Dems admit isn't all there anymore) in the Senate at 87 and guaranteed her seat until she's 91. Shame on CA voters for reelecting her in 2018. Ditto for some of her geriatric peers. I can think of several justices who hung on far past their effectiveness to prevent a Republican president appointing their successor - RBG, Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
worried 9/25/2020 12:04:04 PM (No. 551990)
Until they approve term limits for congress first, then they can discuss this. They keep rejecting their own proposed limits, so deal with that first. Of course, that will never happen.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Right Time 9/25/2020 12:08:11 PM (No. 551993)
The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.
Setting term limits would require amending the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 vote in both Houses (or a national convention).
This House Bill is going nowhere.
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
KTWO 9/25/2020 12:42:12 PM (No. 552009)
Bill would be unconstitutional. But I do favor a change. Require the longest serving Justice to leave as the third year of each Presidents term begins. That would gradually change the Court.
I don't want a Court full of 90 year-olds. And that is what will happen as medical care improves.
Some sort of term limit should apply to every office in every branch.
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Strike3 9/25/2020 12:51:38 PM (No. 552015)
I would go with an upper age limit, such as 70, but NO to the democrats' manipulations. That would also be a nice ceiling for all of Congress to limit people such as Pelosi, Biden, Waters and Feinstein to their semi-sane years.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
bighambone 9/25/2020 1:04:29 PM (No. 552026)
The Democrats should take care of their own house first by passing term limits on politicians elected to the House of Representatives. #12 is right!
2 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 9/25/2020 1:05:56 PM (No. 552029)
Make it 5 years. in between Senate and President
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
DVC 9/25/2020 1:08:33 PM (No. 552031)
Definitely, the Dem's primary play is "cheat", followed by "when you can't cheat, change the rules".
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
DVC 9/25/2020 1:08:54 PM (No. 552032)
Bill is going nowhere, as usual.
1 person likes this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Foont 9/25/2020 1:15:53 PM (No. 552040)
I support this. I also support an upper age limit. An earlier poster put this at 80 but I would set it lower - 75 at least. Our problems stem in a large part from the fact that too many of our rulers are entrenched and face no threat of removal by vote or impeachment so let's go ahead and term limit them. Also, a term limited court might be more open to the idea of term limits for others.
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
curious1 9/25/2020 1:41:09 PM (No. 552069)
#5 and others, Giving the justices tenure during good behavior works quite well when you have justices who acknowledge duty, honor and service to country. And acknowledge the responsibilities that such impose on them. Unfortunately, most modern justices couldn't spell duty and honor, let alone be guided by same - look at all the leftard judges who think they are legislators. They are NPCs without a sense of duty or honor at all.
2 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
southernboy 9/25/2020 2:07:29 PM (No. 552108)
Why not go whole-hog!
Introduce a bill that SC judges can only be replaced when a Democrat POTUS is in office?
1 person likes this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 9/25/2020 2:54:24 PM (No. 552149)
Dims, don't waste your time.
1 person likes this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
mifla 9/26/2020 7:15:02 AM (No. 552744)
You first, House of Representatives.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "hammondb3"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
I would think this would have to be an Amendment to the Constitution but maybe the brain dead hate filled left thinks they can do this by fiat. Whatever the case, I hope it bites them in the ass.