Posted on 09/25/2020 4:49:18 AM PDT by fwdude
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.
The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Unconstitutional. This would require a Constitutional amendment, not a “bill.”
Yes.
Definitely. Repeal the 17th
So they went ahead and killed Scalia.
Liberals think politics is, incessantly moving the goal posts... so they can reach their objectives.
MORONS!
“in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.”
Thanks, Reuters. For acting as a propaganda arm of the democratic party.
19th Amendment is the worst...by far.
I think term limits for congress should come first, and 12 years, like you say, for congress. Twelve years for the court. Eighteen years is too long.
I say 4. But it will require a constitutional amendment.
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.
So now we can change the Constitution with a simple bill?
The constitution says nothing about setting term limits on judges. It would be legal. However current judges were appointed for life time appointments, so they would have to grandfather all currently sitting justices leaving them removable only through impeachment.
Bump!!!!
I couldn’t agree more. But the motivation for passing the 19th was far different in the early 20th Century. At that time, wives were far more in deference to their husbands’ wishes, and they were, by culture norms, of like mind. Passing the 19th Amendment was generally seen as doubling every married man’s vote. Not true in every instance, but still largely the case.
Far, far different today.
If (BIG IF) these ‘lawmakers’ could read English (doubtful) and had more than 2 neurons at work (no evidence thereof), they would read the US Constitution (gasp!) and find Article III concerning the EQUAL BRANCH of the JUDICIARY. There, this US CONSTITUTION, that their swearing in oath/affirmation required them to uphold and defend, states; “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”
So passing a LAW that is in direct violation of their sworn oath should be cause for the following; 1) Striking the bill by the Parliamentarian for the above reason, 2) Removal from their elected office until/if re-elected for oath breaking, 3) Required RE-EDUCATION CLASSES on the US Constitution before resuming Legislative position (Hillsdale?).
Yes, a proposed Amendment is perfectly fine, go for it! Otherwise, STFU you posturing mouth-breathers!
Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years.
Obviously unconstitutional madness. Are all the Dims smoking dope or just Pelousy?
Dunno ‘bout a term limit, but how about a mandatory retirement age for the Supreme Court? Maybe 80?
Agreed.
Democrats =
1. Open and unliimited immigration
2. Pack the Court
3. Term limit the Court
4. Change Citizenship requirement to be President
5. Basically unguarded and unlimited voting.
6. No First or Second Amendment
7. No presumption of Innocence
8. Ditch electoral College
It is pretty evident what Dems desire. Basically, no Constitution. Like Obamacare, they probably have a new Constitution ready to roll out when they have power again.
The Constitution provides that supreme court judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” It would require an amendment to install term limits.
If they include term limits for themselves, I might consider supporting it.
“The constitution says nothing about setting term limits on judges. It would be legal.”
The Constitution said nothing about setting term limits on Presidents, and yet there is the 22nd Amendment. Would you reason that an act of Congress would have been sufficient?
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.