Perry wants term limits on high court [favors change in Constitution]

Charlotte Observer ^ | September 1, 2011 | Todd J. Gillman The Dallas Morning News

[Flag_This]

"I do. its a stupid idea."

Because we've been so well served by the octogenarian clown posse.

[Raider Sam]

So what was the conservative position on Prohibition? Was it conservative to change the constitution and deny people the ability to drink?

Or was it conservative to change the constitution later, and not “conserve” the constitution?

Or is it being liberal to both ban drinking and ban the ban on drinking?

[Alas Babylon!]

Dude, that’s awesome.

But much too cruel.

[BuckeyeTexan]

One scenario off the top of my head ...

Suppose the end of a term is coming up. A justice/judge is young enough to need to continue working after his term. A controversial ruling is coming up. The justice considers how the ruling will affect his job prospects - or - he is outright promised a prestigious position if he rules a particular way.

[Flag_This]

"The justice considers how the ruling will affect his job prospects - or - he is outright promised a prestigious position if he rules a particular way."

Then you have a corrupt justice and that same corrupt justice would take under-the-table payments and favors during a lifetime appointment too.

[JDW11235]

Absolutely and whole-heartedly agree. Another Freeper had this organization in his/her tagline. I’m considering changing mine to put it in. This is a good site for those interested in what we have mentioned:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

As you said, this situation is ridiculous. The apportionment nonsense would be virtually halted overnight. It’s hard to gerrymander 30l people. And even harder to buy off all the reps, especially when they’re not all galavanting in Washington D.C. with their staffers.

[Anima Mundi]

It seems like it would be good to consider all of the age requirements in light of the expanded life span and in light of the delayed maturity. Perhaps it is time to raise the age at which someone can be a Senator or the President, which might lessen the clinton style escapades too.Norm everything to average life span. Should 18 year olds be considered “children” for healthcare, but “adults” for voting?

[mamelukesabre]

fool

[penelopesire]

Hmmm...not sure I like this idea AT ALL! I have said that if Sarah doesn’t run that I will support Perry, but this kind of stuff gives me pause.

[Mariner]

Fortunately a POTUS has no influence over the Amendment Process.

This is one I could never support.

The core issue with Judges is the elected branches of government...they don't value adherence to the Constitution. The core issue with the elected branches of government is US...the electorate.

The Constitution is just fine.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks for the link. You should compose a vanity on it.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING thread! Thanks to all posters.

[CSI007]

Of course he wants term limits for the SC. It’s not liberal enough for him the way it is.

[ilovesarah2012]

So you think a justice could be bribed with a job? Do you think they can be bribed under current situations? I am pretty sure really good lawyers can make way more than justices. And I’m pretty sure a former SCJ could make a lot of money in private practice. Should there be a mandatory retirement age or should we wait until they’re senile before removing them from the court?

[Flag_This]

"fool"

Well there's a reasoned argument.

[mamelukesabre]

its not an argument. fool.

[Flag_This]

"its not an argument. fool."

You've grown tiresome. Get bent.

And enjoy 30 years of decisions from the "wise latina" and Kagan.

[mamelukesabre]

get bent fool

[buccaneer81]

And enjoy 30 years of decisions from the "wise latina" and Kagan.

Offset by 30 years of Scalia and Thomas. These things tend to even out.

[Flag_This]

"Offset by 30 years of Scalia and Thomas. These things tend to even out."

How many justices, appointed by Republicans, have turned into total libs over time? Conversely, do you imagine Kagan or Sotomayor will become more conservative over time? We have had some good conservatives appointed, but the result has been a tenuous, at best, holding action from a relentless left-ward tilt.

Right now, every controversial case depends on which way Kennedy will flop, as we wait for Obamacare to wend its way to the Supreme Court. How did the fundamental liberties of 310 million people become dependent on the whims of one black-robed lawyer?

I understand the intent of the Framers when they set up the Supreme Court, but I think the reality is that the Court has become entirely too powerful with no accountability to anyone.