Posted on 09/24/2020 4:54:30 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
The first thing a fair and accurate media would do is FACT CHECK the Democrats because this bill would be unconstitutional.
You would need an amendment and term limits are just a bad idea.
The change we need is to let a President remove them with the advice and consent of the Senate.
I actually have proposed on FR that there should be an amendment (what is this about a bill reducing the tenure of officials whose term (life) is stipulated in the Constitution?) which would make SCOTUS nominees be running mates of the presidential candidates. The winning presidenty’s two running mates would be inaugurated at the end of the SCOTUS season following the inauguration of new president - and senior justices would have to retire as necessary to keep the number of justices on SCOTUS constant.But I would prefer that the number of SCOTUS justices would be limited, not to nine as traditionally, but to eleven. This would map to justices having 22 year terms rather that 18, which seems better to me - but more importantly, each two-term POTUS would name only 4/11 ths of the Court - whereas four justices out of nine would only need one incumbent of their predilection to control SCOTUS for the second term of a two-term POTUS.
Retired SCOTUS members of the same party as a deceased sitting justice would come out of retirement to fill (far less common than now) open seats on SCOTUS. Clearly requires a constitutional amendment, but it would have the advantages of regularizing the effect of each presidential election on the composition of SCOTUS, and force future presidential candidates to specifically name their SCOTUS selections.
As for the current opening to be filled by confirmation by the Senate, IMHO the chairman of the Judiciary Committee should pull the plug on the TV camera when the Democrats abuse the nominee. And should terminate the hearing shortly thereafter with a call for an immediate vote on recommending confirmation by the full Senate.
LOL!“in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.”
It would obviously have to be an amendment rather than a mere law, but if combined with making two SCOTUS nominees runningmates of each POTUS candidate, https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3887379/posts?q=1&;page=84#84
it would imho achieve that end.
...and add repeal of the 17th
Currently...
19 states democRAT legislatures
26 states Republican legeslatures
2 mixed
Means full control of Senate and State’s rights have representative voice. Brings national politics to more local and state level.
Okay....WE WILL!!!!YOU dummies were the ones who said.....Let’s pack the Supreme Court!!!
Not a chance. That would only guarantee that the number of SCOTUS justices would increase every time a different party controlled both houses and the WH. Without limit.A constitutional amendment fixing the size of the SCOTUS bench is definitely indicated. As is a provision in that amendment to regularize the impact of each presidential election on the composition of SCOTUS.
My #81 proposes such. If the Democrats are talking about limiting the size of SCOTUS and the terms of justices, I would be on board - but I’d want to go to 11 justices, and each president would have two running mates who’d join the bench in the term following the president’s inauguration. Senior justices would retire as needed to hold the size of the bench constant.
11 justices would map to 22 year terms, and each two-term POTUS would name 4/11 (not 4/9) of SCOTUS. So that’s my idea of the best long-term solution to the issue.
Another acceptable approach would be to have every other presidential election have only one judicial “running mate.” The a nine-justice bench would turn over completely every 24 years. And each 2-term POTUS would name 3/9 of the bench.
If such an amendment were to be instituted, NOW - when the 2024 race is looking completely open - would be the time to do it.
But IMHO having each two-term POTUS name 4/9 of the court would make the majority of the SCOTUS bench unstable if the parties continuously went back and forth electing two-term presidents.
But altho such an amendment might get 2/3 of the House, I’m afraid eliminating the senate’s role in confirming SCOTUS justices would be a harder sell in that body.
Sorry...didn’t realize I needed a /sarc tag, on that.
;- /
IOW, they've lost the SCOTUS fight and are making yet another drama-queen symbolic "resistance" PR move.
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.