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.
Because we've been so well served by the octogenarian clown posse.
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?
Dude, that’s awesome.
But much too cruel.
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.
Then you have a corrupt justice and that same corrupt justice would take under-the-table payments and favors during a lifetime appointment too.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks for the link. You should compose a vanity on it.
OUTSTANDING thread! Thanks to all posters.
Of course he wants term limits for the SC. It’s not liberal enough for him the way it is.
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?
Well there's a reasoned argument.
its not an argument. fool.
You've grown tiresome. Get bent.
And enjoy 30 years of decisions from the "wise latina" and Kagan.
get bent fool
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.
What an idiotic proposal. Ranks right up there with his views on protecting illegals and backing Al Gore.
KAGAN AND SOTOMAYOR, DIDN’T THEY HAVE THE ENTHUSIASTIC BACKING OF ORRIN G. Hatch?
All RINOs and most Republicans backed them.
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!
Already have it! It's not been used in a while but it's there!
The states, through their members of the senate were intended to be arbiters of the Constitution as well!
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.
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.