Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry wants term limits on high court [favors change in Constitution]
Charlotte Observer ^ | September 1, 2011 | Todd J. Gillman The Dallas Morning News

Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife

Impeachment.


101 posted on 09/02/2011 1:28:59 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Seems to me that conservatives don’t think far into the future. What sounds good under a republican dominated government can bite you hard under a democrat led government.”

That’d be a valid point if Republicans controlled Congress. Since they don’t, I don’t know where you’re coming from.


102 posted on 09/02/2011 1:29:16 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I support that for the Legislative and Executive branches. I just don’t know how I feel about it for the senior areas of the Judiciary. They must be free from political interference.


103 posted on 09/02/2011 1:32:30 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Agree 100%.


104 posted on 09/02/2011 1:38:00 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I just read this on wikipedia - so take it with the necessary grain of salt.

Reduction of infant mortality has accounted for most of this increased average longevity, but since the 1960s mortality rates among those over 80 years have decreased by about 1.5% per year.

105 posted on 09/02/2011 1:38:32 PM PDT by colorcountry (Comforting lies are not your friends. Painful truths are not your enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

You don’t think their appointments and confirmations are “political”?


106 posted on 09/02/2011 1:39:09 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I meant that their ability to make rulings shouldn’t be interfered with by politicians or voters. Certainly, their appointments are based on political ideology.


107 posted on 09/02/2011 1:43:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

That would fix nothing.

That would not guarantee a better appointee as a replacement.

The cure for bad SCOTUS justices lies with electing Constitutionalist Presidents, not with changing the system of their selection or their term.

Opportunities for “change” on the court can work against Conservatives as easily as for us. It is no panacea.

Anyone interested in putting Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts up for replacement, by law, before end of Obama’s term? No? But you would place that burden on some future situation?

I won’t.

I WILL

always work for Presidents to appoint judges with respect for the written Constitutions and ITS MANDATES for limited government.


108 posted on 09/02/2011 1:43:59 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

HELL NO!

On this one, leave the Constitution alone.


109 posted on 09/02/2011 1:44:58 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How would term limits affect their rulings?


110 posted on 09/02/2011 1:44:58 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Lifespans have greatly increased since 1776. I think one 20 year term is more than enough time for anyone on the court


111 posted on 09/02/2011 1:45:41 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
More Perry ignorance of the Constitution
112 posted on 09/02/2011 1:46:42 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user

Wrong, it is stupid to waste the time talking about it,. But it does show a complete like of understanding about what it takes to amend the Constitution on amnesty Perry’s part. Think about the problems the country has, we will be long broke by spending before a change to the Constitution would pass the states.


113 posted on 09/02/2011 1:53:09 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sargon

I’m against it. A Supreme Court justice could always be removed via Impeachment if there was some kind of compelling reason which the Congress felt existed.


How did the Clinton impeachment work out?


114 posted on 09/02/2011 1:55:00 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The real problem with the supreme court is the fact that our “moderates” will confirm any marxist moron the democrats want.


115 posted on 09/02/2011 2:00:02 PM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a Permenant Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution...”

If you follow that line of logic then the Constitution would never be amended, even though the Founding Fathers provided us with 2 methods of having the Constitution amended.


116 posted on 09/02/2011 2:03:30 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
That is the problem, the old rino fix, when a democrap has an appointment, they say the president deserves, etc, etc, when a republican has an appointment they say we must reach across the isles.
117 posted on 09/02/2011 2:04:47 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ops33

We do follow that logic how many time has it been amended.


118 posted on 09/02/2011 2:06:16 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Sounds like a good idea but it should apply to federal judges as well. The framers thought justices would put Constitutional principles above the politics. They weren't naive but I don't think they ever envision the political activism from the courts as you have today. When courts rule that you can't cut taxes in favor of union pensions there are some big issues with our courts.

There is nothing wrong with term limits-including politicians.

119 posted on 09/02/2011 2:08:15 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Anyone who believes that the original constitution should go UNAMENDED is totally off their rocker. Amendments are warranted when necessary otherwise slavery would still be legal. I totally respect the founding fathers but they were not fortune tellers. Amendments are pretty hard to get approved - as it should be - and some are definitely warranted. Let the people decide! An unamended constitution represents dictatorship, pure and simple. This is America - everything is up for discussion.


120 posted on 09/02/2011 2:10:09 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
"I do. its a stupid idea."

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


121 posted on 09/02/2011 2:33:41 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

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?


122 posted on 09/02/2011 2:33:58 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Dude, that’s awesome.

But much too cruel.


123 posted on 09/02/2011 2:40:59 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

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.


124 posted on 09/02/2011 2:45:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"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.

125 posted on 09/02/2011 2:54:43 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

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.


126 posted on 09/02/2011 3:11:04 PM PDT by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

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?


127 posted on 09/02/2011 3:14:20 PM PDT by Anima Mundi (I didn't say it was your fault. I said I am going to BLAME you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

fool


128 posted on 09/02/2011 3:16:47 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


129 posted on 09/02/2011 3:20:30 PM PDT by penelopesire (Let The Congressional Hearings Begin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
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.

130 posted on 09/02/2011 3:26:08 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JDW11235

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


131 posted on 09/02/2011 3:47:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; All

OUTSTANDING thread! Thanks to all posters.


132 posted on 09/02/2011 3:51:17 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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


133 posted on 09/02/2011 4:07:50 PM PDT by CSI007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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?


134 posted on 09/02/2011 5:48:12 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
"fool"

Well there's a reasoned argument.

135 posted on 09/02/2011 7:10:09 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

its not an argument. fool.


136 posted on 09/02/2011 7:48:21 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
"its not an argument. fool."

You've grown tiresome. Get bent.

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

137 posted on 09/02/2011 7:52:55 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

get bent fool


138 posted on 09/02/2011 9:35:58 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
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.

139 posted on 09/03/2011 12:27:14 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
"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.

140 posted on 09/03/2011 5:24:04 AM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What an idiotic proposal. Ranks right up there with his views on protecting illegals and backing Al Gore.


141 posted on 09/03/2011 6:15:32 AM PDT by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user

KAGAN AND SOTOMAYOR, DIDN’T THEY HAVE THE ENTHUSIASTIC BACKING OF ORRIN G. Hatch?


142 posted on 09/03/2011 7:15:27 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

All RINOs and most Republicans backed them.


143 posted on 09/03/2011 7:18:31 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

The founders NEVER intended that the SC would be the sole arbiters of what is, or is not, constitutional! In fact, the envisioned that court as being a rather academic endeavor!


144 posted on 09/03/2011 7:20:10 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
A better solution is for Congress to use its Article III Section 2 power to curb the courts. Scotus operates as if there is no check on it because Lefties and Rinos in Congress let it.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Great post!

145 posted on 09/03/2011 7:30:05 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf


146 posted on 09/03/2011 7:33:03 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
The judges do need to be in a position to not be swayed by politics but on the other hand there needs to be some way of keeping them from just making up laws like they did in Roe V. Wade.

Already have it! It's not been used in a while but it's there!

http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf

147 posted on 09/03/2011 7:38:23 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The 17th really screwed things up.

AMEN!

The states, through their members of the senate were intended to be arbiters of the Constitution as well!

148 posted on 09/03/2011 7:41:35 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative; Cincinatus' Wife

CW, I can’t see anyone who supports Rick Perry being a huge Thomas fan. Rick Perry is the biggest eminent domain abuser since Theodore Roosevelt, and Clarence Thomas is the only one on the SCOTUS who stood up for an originalist view of the “public purpose” test. Seriously, you agree with Clarence Thomas? The justice who said that states have the right to legalize drugs and police can’t use thermal imaging on people’s homes to catch drug dealers? I simply don’t buy it.


149 posted on 09/03/2011 9:28:18 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Rick Perry sweep the polls? Naw, the illegals he's coddled in Texas do all his sweeping.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The Constitution itself allows for its own amendment. A strict constructionist would say, "Amend it according to the process set out in the constitution, and you have correctly applied the Constitution to itself."

Absolutely right. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with amending the Constitution by its own provisions. Thank God they thought to put in that provision to deal with unforeseen problems like activist justices.

150 posted on 09/03/2011 10:21:34 AM PDT by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson