Skip to comments.Perry wants term limits on high court [favors change in Constitution]
Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
“Seems to me that conservatives dont 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.
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.
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.
You don’t think their appointments and confirmations are “political”?
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.
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?
always work for Presidents to appoint judges with respect for the written Constitutions and ITS MANDATES for limited government.
On this one, leave the Constitution alone.
How would term limits affect their rulings?
Lifespans have greatly increased since 1776. I think one 20 year term is more than enough time for anyone on the court
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.
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.
The real problem with the supreme court is the fact that our “moderates” will confirm any marxist moron the democrats want.
“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.
We do follow that logic how many time has it been amended.
There is nothing wrong with term limits-including politicians.
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.