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
I would support term limits for district and appellate judges, but not for SCOTUS.................
Shut up Rick. If you want people to vote for you don’t mess with the Constitution. If it needs to be changed, WE’LL let YOU know. Mkay?
I honestly don’t know what to do.
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.
That goes for all federal judges, not just the Supreme Court.
No term limits.
In favor of a constitutional amendment that extends grounds for judicial impeachment to judicial activism. period.
“We are fast headed for tyranny because we the people have let judges make law, allowed Congress to assign lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats who make, execute and adjudicate law via Presidential diktats.”
And an arbitrarilly low number of Representatives that are neither accountable to their constituents, nor care about anything other than living in “Club Congress.” Fix the Representation, or there can NEVER be a checks and balances system. On my wish list too is the moving of the U.S. Capital to the middle of the country, and eliminating the need for travel to Washington. There is no reason AT ALL that Congress critters cannot meet virtually and stay in their offices back in their districts. This is not the 1790’s. State constitutions have been TELEGRAPHED in for admittance to the Union, mind you, and that’s been 150 years!
Fix Representaion, clean out the Aegean Stables, and we can get the ball rolling!
Lord, Perry can’t have an opinion on anything without a hit piece being tossed at him.
The concept is interesting and looking at the potential for a single idiot President and wimp Congress to appoint an entire court there is logic there.
I already see the organized attacks forming to either say Perry isn’t a pure enough Constitutionalist or that he is merely a trying to subvert the will of the people or that this is not the time for this discussion because it interferes with what “I” think should be the central issues. Perhaps this merits discussion maybe not at the top of the agenda, but a couple of safeguards against a runaway President and congress might actually have merit.
Chapter 3: What Happened to the Founders Vision?
Perry says the tipping point the period when the federal government began to over-assert its authority was the dawn of the so-called Progressive movement. Ever since, liberals have used every opportunity to wage a gradual war on the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has become a policy maker rather than an interpreter of the Constitution. Passage of the 16th Amendment (allowing Congress to collect an income take without apportioning it among the states) and 17th Amendment (allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators, rather than by state legislatures) further reduced the power of the states. FDRs New Deal set the standard for federal power abuse. Congress interpretation of the Commerce Clause to allow for a wide variety of federal intrusions, including President Obamas health care reform, has been the nail in the coffin of the proper balance between the feds and the states.
This idea will not help him.
I don’t care for it, and I’m sure I’m not alone. :)
Silly! Of course it goes to the people. Any problem talking about it? Putting things on the table? Not hiding what your thoughts are until after you're elected? You know?? all that "hopey-changey" bs that goes out the door?
Perry wants us to THINK!
To remember that it's, "WE THE PEOPLE!"
I agree. It’s beyond stupid, and makes the Supreme Court even more subject to politics.
Repeal the 17th!!!!!!
Or maybe even his ‘Checkers Speech’.
“I do. its a stupid idea.”
So are lifetime terms. Not that I advocate a change, but if they’re not going to stay above the fray, perhaps we shouldn’t treat them like they’re above the fray. The one true oligarchy of the federal government ought to justify its own existence every once in a while.
“If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers.”
This doesn’t follow. By that reasoning we wouldn’t have ended slavery by amending the constitution (something I’m sure strict constructionists wholeheartedly agree with). You can be a strict constructionist but still think the constitution could be amended.
I think some of the higher court justices should have a system of a vote of no confidence where if 66% of the population voates agaisnt them they get thrown out.
Think of it as a judicial veto.
I'd like to think we could tweak what "good behaviour" might mean. The constitution seems to be leaving an opening for the impeachment of Supreme Court Judges:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
As I said in my last post-
(I believe) Perry brings these things up to have the discussion, to remind people that the power is in their hands, that it is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” And to make any changes before it’s too late — as it is now, we’re at the “vote your money into my pocket” point now. We can only remain a Republic if the people who have power are moral, and care about the country.
That would be my fear.
“If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isnt because hes looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers.
This is from the president of the ABA? Can she really not be aware that the Framers wrote Article V? Or is she just a dirty liar?
See Post #57.
“Every time someone tries to tinker with what is NOT supposed to be a living document there are always unintended consequences.”
It most certainly IS supposed to be living in the sense that it can be amended, which is what we’re talking about here.
I had to review.
I think Sarah has been given the opportunity to give a few “Checkers speeches” of her own.
Sometimes an attack can backfire as it did in the fund scandal in ‘52.
But I do hate the emotional appeals when they are hollow.
ding, ding, ding...we have a winner.
I'll take Perry over Romney and either one of those over Obama on any day. But, I'm really not sold on Perry and am getting frustrated with media anointed front-runners.
I'm not sure if the idea is good or not, but the process proposed is proper.
Conservatives conserve the Constitution.
What other RINO changes does he want?”
This issue has apparently driven a lot of people off the deep end. Since when can’t a conservative amend the Constitution? Amendability is part of the essence of the Constitution. This particular issue is one thing, and so are general questions about how often it should be amended or how solemn and serious a process it is. But to say conservative = conserve = no amendments is just stupid.
And what does “logic” have to do with it? Since “conservative” is our label, we are “logically” compelled never to change anything? That’s insane.
The 435 members of Congress was set a hundred years ago when we had less than 100 million people. We have over three times that number now.
The Constitution specifies no more than 1:30,000. We are over 1:700,000 now. There should be around 5,000 Congressmen. Let San Francisco send a dozen freaks, and my rural FL panhandle county will send a single good ‘ol boy.
Every ten years the country goes nuts with reapportionment. Almost all plans end up in court where libs abuse the unconstitutional Voting Rights Act. This judicial nonsense could be largely avoided if there was a rep for every 30-40K citizens.
My two cents.
Make that 435 of the House. Oops.
I don’t like the idea of term limits for Justice, but I DO wish the Senators who pass them on so blithely would take their responsibility more seriously than just going along because it’s a president’s prerogative.
Th senatorsy are not voting for Homecoming King. These ARE lifetime appointments to positions that will affect all Americans’ lives for generations and in that sense, far more important than any president or senator or representative.
I read the article and would agree that the power of Congress to reign in the Supreme Court exists. However, I am not sure that I would want that power to be exercised. Imagine if after passing ObamaCare Congress then passed a joint resolution restricting the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality?
“He also wants to be able to overturn SC decisions by a 2/3 vote of Congress. Thats a two edged sword. Id leave it be.”
Yeah, it’s one thing to pretend justices are interested in nothing but the law, or that they know what they’re talking about in the first place (which is often hard to tell). Perhaps there’s a better balance we could strike. It’s quite another to throw the Constitution into the swamp and subordinate the law to democracy, even super-majority reporesentative democracy. Yuck.
Quick question, name the three longest serving supreme court chief justices?
As some of our fundamental rights bounced up and down like a rubber ball? We could be free men in one Congressional session and criminal felons the next. And imagine the congressional campaigns that would be driven by such a system. Again, no thanks.
Black, Stevens and Burger?
Burger rings in at number 5.
The person who wrote this is an idiot. 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."
I don’t think it would make a difference.
Okay. Marshall and Rehnquist are all I can up with. Along with Burger.
I think every government job should have term limits.
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.
Our government is supposed to act slowly.
As our Framers feared, we have become a debauched people, who have sent far too many dirtbags to govern us. With such people unanchored by morality and devoid of virtue, can we expect Constitutional government?
Also, the Framers never seriously considered a popularly elected Senate. The 17th really screwed things up.
“This doesnt follow. By that reasoning we wouldnt have ended slavery by amending the constitution”
Liberals either actually do or only pretend to think conservatives are racists, and as such have absolutely no problem believing a strict constructionist for consistency’s sake must have opposed the 13th amendment. They are also periodic morons, so I’m not surprised.
The “population” that elected Obama?
I’m all in favor of term limits for both liberal judges and liberal Congress men... flush them out soon as possible! LOL!
He’s wrong on this. SC is fine. Congress can pass laws/ammend Constitution to offset judicial activism. Big problem is Congress. Starting with the popular election of Senate. Founding Fathers got it right.
Marshall died at 80, Taney died at 87, Fuller at 77.
Marshall was appointed at 46, Taney at 59 and Fuller at 55.
All lived during the 19th century. If lifespans are longer now, you would expect the longest serving chief justices to be the recent ones, but that’s not the case.
Lifespans are not necessarily longer now, but the average life expectancy is,... mostly due to higher infant mortality in earlier times.
If you have two people and one live to be 90 and the other dies at one month old, the average life expectancy is 45, but the longest lifespan is 90.
If you have two people and one lives to be 70 and the other dies at 50, the average life expectancy is 60 and the longest lifespan is 70.
This is how the medical industry ‘games’ the system - by saving more youngsters, and not necessarily by providing more time at the end of life - - oh don’t get me wrong, the medical establishment might have actually given each of us a couple of years at the end of our lives. Is it quality time? ...And at what cost?
Saved me the trouble of posting. :)