Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Demsrule86

(71,465 posts)
65. You are wrong about teachers...the worst school I ever taught in was in Georgia where there
Tue Jun 26, 2018, 07:58 PM
Jun 2018

are no unions or tenure...it was so political and they were cheating on tests like crazy..resigned.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What would it take to cha...»Reply #65