General Discussion

Stuart G

(38,726 posts)

46. Now, it is not dangerous territory..It depends on who is appointed, and when, and what is the topic

Tue Jun 26, 2018, 03:02 PM

Jun 2018

For example in 1954 or was it 55..Brown vs the Board of Ed, made segregation "illegal." That over time improved the country and our attitudes. Yes it took time. And that was a very important vote, that probably would not have happened if there were term limits. When that decision was made, the justices knew that they would not be thrown out because of that decision. And the founding fathers knew that and that is why they put it in.

......Say the Supreme Court makes a very strong ruling against Mr.Trump. A ruling that limits him in a very positive way. (you can fill in the blanks)..Now, if the justices needed to be reappointed, then maybe they would think different about making such a ruling. But they don't need to be reappointed. That is the real reason why McConnell holding up Obama's appointment was so .."evil"...Yes, there is a rung in hell for McConnell, and it is exactly the same rung for Trump. They can live in hell together...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

98 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What would it take to change Supreme Court tenure to 10 years? [View all] Equinox Moon Jun 2018 OP

A Constitutional Amendment edhopper Jun 2018 #1

Article III judges (including the Supreme Court Justices) rsdsharp Jun 2018 #2

Life time appointments are just wrong. Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #4

rationale is that it frees judges from any job-based commitment to those who appoint them 0rganism Jun 2018 #10

That would be dangerous territory. bearsfootball516 Jun 2018 #3

Well, we don't want that either. Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #5

Now, it is not dangerous territory..It depends on who is appointed, and when, and what is the topic Stuart G Jun 2018 #46

Not only that, but we all just witnessed Republican refusing a SCOTUS nomoniee icymist Jun 2018 #77

I read somewhere that Congress could add more seats to the court YessirAtsaFact Jun 2018 #6

Yes! I remember that now. Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #9

Yes, they can NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #14

Sounds to me like it is time for a change with the # of SCJ's Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #18

FDR didn't really want that to happen; it was a bold move on his part. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #91

The Constitution is silent on the number of SC justices. 9 is statutory. Therefore, it's changeable. Shrike47 Jun 2018 #16

and, he tried to enlarge it when Democrats controlled both Houses, I believe NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #21

With McTurtle refusing to even consider Obama's nominees YessirAtsaFact Jun 2018 #25

Yes. Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #26

Only 1 SCOTUS justice has been impeached in the history of the country NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #27

life time back then was about 50 yrs old.... samnsara Jun 2018 #7

Good point Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #19

Not for the founding fathers onenote Jun 2018 #34

"Average lifetime" was short due to infant and child mortality struggle4progress Jun 2018 #63

What FDR tried to do Freddie Jun 2018 #8

We need FEARCE Dem leadership to take actions like this, increasing the # on the court Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #12

Yes... FarPoint Jun 2018 #15

One will have to enter.... FarPoint Jun 2018 #11

The irony is that many of us feel like we ARE in a parallel universe now. Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #20

This won't happen genxlib Jun 2018 #13

All really good points, thanks for the discussion Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #17

so what could former judges do? onenote Jun 2018 #66

Retire genxlib Jun 2018 #80

Constitutional amendment...so no chance but judges can be impeached beachbum bob Jun 2018 #22

And, Gorsuch is illegitimate and I would think that would qualify for impeachment Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #28

He was voted on, so it's not.. beachbum bob Jun 2018 #41

He has not committed a high crime or misdemeamor EffieBlack Jun 2018 #67

Not sure about 10 years but definitely a Phoenix61 Jun 2018 #23

I think some state supreme court's have it set for 70 years old Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #24

If that limitation was made law today onenote Jun 2018 #69

If enacted retroactively, absolutely Phoenix61 Jun 2018 #73

Would it matter with the CURRENT USSC abstaining from ruling against gerrymandering? no_hypocrisy Jun 2018 #29

Everyone in gov't should be term limited to 10 years quartz007 Jun 2018 #30

Agreed! Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #33

That produces government-by-lobbyist struggle4progress Jun 2018 #37

Just the OPPOSITE!!!! quartz007 Jun 2018 #42

No. Where there is no institutional memory, the lobbyists step into the vacuum struggle4progress Jun 2018 #57

Correct jberryhill Jun 2018 #58

Exactly! EffieBlack Jun 2018 #68

New laws could be made to restrain or kick out lobbyists Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #70

Would never work EffieBlack Jun 2018 #74

That would work out very poorly mythology Jun 2018 #39

Common...all the power resides with seniority quartz007 Jun 2018 #43

The inexperienced legislators will be heavily dependent on lobbyists EffieBlack Jun 2018 #71

Term limits would give us fewer Teddys and more Teds EffieBlack Jun 2018 #72

No. Terrible idea. PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #82

The surest way to eliminate corruption in DC is quartz007 Jun 2018 #86

You are also ignoring the obvious quartz007 Jun 2018 #87

Running the government in 1789 was vastly simpler PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #88

We have term limits. It's called "don't vote for them, then" Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #92

It won't happen...constitutional amendment...work to take the senate if we get it...no more judges. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #31

Yes, right, need a constitutional amendment for term limits quartz007 Jun 2018 #44

We might take the Senate...tough pickup but... Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #48

2018 results will surprise...for the better! quartz007 Jun 2018 #51

I am hopeful too... Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #64

Or we could have done a more aggressive push to get our rightful nominee in.... vi5 Jun 2018 #32

Disagree . People need to stop fkg around with their vote. Fullduplexxx Jun 2018 #35

I support life-time appointments: it insulates the courts from short-term political influence struggle4progress Jun 2018 #36

Voters will have more power because... quartz007 Jun 2018 #45

You propose a regime in which jurisprudence oscillates wildly from year to year, struggle4progress Jun 2018 #49

Why is a 90 year old judge better than a middle age judge? quartz007 Jun 2018 #50

The oldest-ever Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, retired at 90 in early 1931 struggle4progress Jun 2018 #55

Ruth Bader Ginsburg. PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #83

How sharp is her mind compared to quartz007 Jun 2018 #85

I don't follow her closely but I get the distinct impression PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #89

Even if mind is sharp, there is palpable physical deterioration after 75 quartz007 Jun 2018 #96

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. struggle4progress Jun 2018 #94

Absolutely agree Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #93

Send some justices to Cheney's ranch for a little hunting. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #38

Expand the court from 9 members to 11. shraby Jun 2018 #40

What we need is a 21 person court SoCalDem Jun 2018 #47

I like it! Equinox Moon Jun 2018 #59

There should never be lifetime appointments for any office or position. democratisphere Jun 2018 #52

You realize that is the exact same argument people use against teacher tenure? MichMan Jun 2018 #53

There should be NO TENURE for anyone, including teachers. democratisphere Jun 2018 #54

You are wrong about teachers...the worst school I ever taught in was in Georgia where there Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #65

Welcome to the corporate world. democratisphere Jun 2018 #75

It was terrible. Teaching there was a form of child abuse. I was ordered to get certain kids out... Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #84

No one should be absolutely safe from removal. But for many professional positions, struggle4progress Jun 2018 #56

Absolutely agree with that! democratisphere Jun 2018 #61

Teacher tenure does not prevent removal of teachers struggle4progress Jun 2018 #62

meteor strike librechik Jun 2018 #60

10 years is too long. 6 years is more than enough. democratisphere Jun 2018 #76

Not for limits. Sometimes long tenure works in our favor, sometimes not. Hoyt Jun 2018 #78

You could make a rule that a nomination has to Buzz cook Jun 2018 #79

That would be a terrible rule onenote Jun 2018 #95

But it would keep Mitch Mconnell Buzz cook Jun 2018 #97

How? The republicans would have voted lockstep against Garland onenote Jun 2018 #98

an amendment to the Constitution. It isn't going to happen still_one Jun 2018 #81

SCOTUS was made lifetime to balance things out. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #90