View Full Version : Bring the Justices Back to Earth!
GIVEN the very real possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn the Affordable Care Act, liberals are concerned that the right-wing tilt of five justices and lifelong appointments ensure a decades-long assault on the power of Congress. This is especially likely given the relative youth of the bloc’s conservative members: an average of 66 years old, when the last 10 justices to retire did so at an average age of 78. The situation brings to mind a proposal voiced most prominently by Gov. Rick Perry during his run for the Republican presidential nomination: judicial term limits. The idea isn’t new. High-ranking judges in all major nations, and all 50 states, are subject to age or term limits. The power to invalidate legislation is, in a sense, the ultimate political power, and mortals who exercise it need constraint. So why not the highest court in the land?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/bring-the-justices-back-to-earth.html?_r=1&hp
Note: Published: April 9, 2012/PAUL D. CARRINGTON
Schroeder
04-10-12, 12:22 PM
It's alive!:o
Welcome back.:D
It's alive!:o
Welcome back.:D Thank you my friend .... not yet recovered from the accident but working on it,:)
Gargamel
04-10-12, 01:19 PM
Vendor!
What accident? :o
Vendor!
What accident? :o Hello there,look at "The Comment Tread" little more explain there:03:
Bubblehead1980
04-10-12, 01:54 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/bring-the-justices-back-to-earth.html?_r=1&hp
Note: Published: April 9, 2012/PAUL D. CARRINGTON
NY times has ZERO credibility anymore. Anyway, term and age limits for SCOTUS are not needed.I will never understand the heard mentality "Well other countries do it so we should also" NO! who cares what other countries are doing with their judiciaries? Far as an "assault" on the power of congress? No, tell congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws to suit their political agendas and the court will not have to do it's job and rule them unconstitutional. Congress has the power to pass laws, but they must be within the bounds of the constitution.
mookiemookie
04-10-12, 01:57 PM
who cares what other countries are doing with their judiciaries?
Other countries like all 50 of the United States?
Platapus
04-10-12, 02:50 PM
I order to have term limits for Justices, I believe it would require a change to the Constitution and fat chance of that happening these days.
Ducimus
04-10-12, 02:53 PM
NY times have ZERO credibility anymore.
So what you mean to say is, their about on par with Fox news? :O::har:
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Jimbuna
04-10-12, 03:31 PM
What a stupid idea.
Might be a Brit but I tend to agree :yep:
nikimcbee
04-10-12, 03:35 PM
I order to have term limits for Justices, I believe it would require a change to the Constitution and fat chance of that happening these days.
I like your idea. I'd term limit everybody 1 term then you're out. I think that would get rid of a lot of corruption.
nikimcbee
04-10-12, 03:37 PM
I like your idea. I'd term limit everybody 1 term then you're out. I think that would get rid of a lot of corruption.
everybody= House, senate, prez.
Onkel Neal
04-10-12, 04:03 PM
Thank you my friend .... not yet recovered from the accident but working on it,:)
Welcome back! :salute:
Onkel Neal
04-10-12, 04:06 PM
If the court had a liberal tilt, the conservatives would be screaming and the liberals would say everything is ok.
Bubblehead1980
04-10-12, 07:10 PM
Other countries like all 50 of the United States?
Well, that is the State's choice and their courts are a bit different than SCOTUS.
Platapus
04-10-12, 07:18 PM
I like your idea. I'd term limit everybody 1 term then you're out. I think that would get rid of a lot of corruption.
I like the idea of term limits for voters. :D
breadcatcher101
04-10-12, 09:44 PM
If the court had a liberal tilt, the conservatives would be screaming and the liberals would say everything is ok.
Hitting the nail on the head.
I can agree with congress and executive term limits, at all levels of government but not for the Courts.
Life terms are the beauty of the Supreme Court. It means that once they are seated they are no longer controllable. They can't be threatened by removal, they don't have to run for re-election and they can't be bribed with promotions.
Throughout it's history the SC has repeatedly ruled against the interests of the parties that nominated them. They really work only for their legacy as judges.
But you introduce term limits and the accompanying turnover and you change all of that. Two of our three branches of government are run by politicians willing to whore their ideals for campaign contributions. I see absolutely no need to make it a trifecta.
soopaman2
04-10-12, 10:24 PM
I can agree with congress and executive term limits, at all levels of government but not for the Courts.
Life terms are the beauty of the Supreme Court. It means that once they are seated they are no longer controllable. They can't be threatened by removal, they don't have to run for re-election and they can't be bribed with promotions.
Throughout it's history the SC has repeatedly ruled against the interests of the parties that nominated them. They really work only for their legacy as judges.
But you introduce term limits and the accompanying turnover and you change all of that. Two of our three branches of government are run by politicians willing to whore their ideals for campaign contributions. I see absolutely no need to make it a trifecta.
I am amazed as we are in agrreement.
It may not be to my liking due to what I feel as bad decisions in the past, but it is a good insurance policy against corruption. Lifetime appointment means ideals will overtake the need to be elected, and gain donors...
Although the thing with Clarence Thomas' wife being a lobbyist kinda disturbs me....
Funny how after the pubic hair on the soda can he got let right in, yet Judge Sotomayor got grilled 10 times harder for her "proud latina" comment taken out of context.
I agree with the obvious conservative slant, though term limits do not help.
Though they should never, ever again decide an election...I am sorry it truly looks bad if your looking for objectivity...They loves the GOP.
I am amazed as we are in agrreement.
It may not be to my liking due to what I feel as bad decisions in the past, but it is a good insurance policy against corruption. Lifetime appointment means ideals will overtake the need to be elected, and gain donors...
Although the thing with Clarence Thomas' wife being a lobbyist kinda disturbs me....
Funny how after the pubic hair on the soda can he got let right in, yet Judge Sotomayor got grilled 10 times harder for her "proud latina" comment taken out of context.
I agree with the obvious conservative slant, though term limits do not help.
Though they should never, ever again decide an election...I am sorry it truly looks bad if your looking for objectivity...They loves the GOP.
Well maybe they won't need to decide another election if the loosing side doesn't try to finesse an election away from the rightful winner.
As for Justices Thomas and Sotomayor it sounds to me like you memories of the events have kind of a partisan slant to them.
BTW it was "wise" Latina not "proud". The entire quote is:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
You can take that any way that lets you sleep at night but to me such an apparently racist (and sexist) statement is at least something worth investigating.
"Bring the Justices Back to Earth!"
Bahh! ... Let the Martians keep them!
:D
.
Tribesman
04-11-12, 03:02 AM
You can take that any way that lets you sleep at night but to me such an apparently racist (and sexist) statement is at least something worth investigating.
Context is important as most people here realised since when you take the whole statement that part cannot mean what some people were claiming it meant.
But don't tell Aramike as he gets stroppy over that :yeah:
As for term limits on judges they can be a good or a bad thing, what strikes me as strange about the US system is there is no retirement age set and no method for removing incapable justices.
Welcome back! :salute: Thanks Neal :)
Sailor Steve
04-11-12, 09:15 AM
Throughout it's history the SC has repeatedly ruled against the interests of the parties that nominated them.
:yep: To the annoyance of a great many presidents, who thought they were packing the courts in their favor.
Well maybe they won't need to decide another election if the loosing side doesn't try to finesse an election away from the rightful winner.
Again :yep: The Florida Supreme Court tried to fiddle with the results. The Federal Court overturned it. Was the SCOTUS politically biased? Sure. That doesn't excuse the pot calling the kettle black, and it doesn't excuse the Florida Court, and it doesn't excuse all the political hacks who've been crying "Foul" for the last twelve years.
As for Justices Thomas and Sotomayor it sounds to me like you memories of the events have kind of a partisan slant to them.
And again :yep: Thomas's nomination was opposed by a "secret" source whose name was not to be revealed. When that failed she came forward. Her word against his. Innocent until proven guilty. No real evidence. I think his supporters were wrong to use the trash tecniques they did, but she was really in no position to cry about it. Congress heard the testimony and decided in his favor. That's the way the system works. To whine about in now is pure partisan politics.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.