Quote: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.

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Partly due to rising life expectancies, justices serve increasingly long tenures, on average now more than 25 years.

Term limits for high court justices have for years had support from a number of legal scholars on both the right and the left. Several polls in recent years have also shown large majorities of the American public support term limits.

The bill – the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act – is the first to try to set Supreme Court term limits by statute, according to Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial transparency group whose campaign for high court term limits has been gaining attention.

Some legal observers, including those who favor term limits, say they must be accomplished through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted as requiring life tenure for federal judges and justices.

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

“That’s perfectly consistent with their judicial independence and having a lifetime salary and a lifetime appointment,” Khanna said.

Link

Uh, how stupid are you effing Democrats. The CONSTITUTION gives them the appointment for a lifetime.

Yet, no term limits for congress.

Three should be term limits for all political positions - three terms for Congress, two for Senate and two for POTUS. I have no problem with an SJC having a limit in total years either either - 15 to 18 years seems to be about right. Most if not all will be done by the time they are 70-75 years old that way.

Sure thing.

As soon as we set up term limits for congress where people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden don’t spend 4 decades as members of the elected aristocracy.

Whats funny is I bet they really think this is a new dandy idea.....


Cue the Ballon drop Hillary GIF

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Trump should use this to tell them to couple it with term limits for congress WITH the supreme court, and decouple it in the law so that when the supreme court part is found unconstitutional, the congressional part remains viable.

Term limits for Congress first and foremost.

Typical Dem playbook though, "They beat us, let's change the rules."

Trump should issue a EO defining the term limits of the Senate and House

Of course, any limit must be a constitutional amendment. Not that the Democrats ever felt constrained by the Constitution.

(09-25-2020 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course, any limit must be a constitutional amendment. Not that the Democrats ever felt constrained by the Constitution.

That is what makes this funny.

(09-25-2020 01:26 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course, any limit must be a constitutional amendment. Not that the Democrats ever felt constrained by the Constitution.

That is what makes this funny.

And its not even a grey area. Its in black and white. Life term.

(09-25-2020 01:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Trump should use this to tell them to couple it with term limits for congress WITH the supreme court, and decouple it in the law so that when the supreme court part is found unconstitutional, the congressional part remains viable.

[B]^^^[/b]

these fks are beyond predictable...

Kind of related but I just saw a commercial for DC Statehood and Electoral College Abolition all rolled into one; which I guess somehow will fix racial injustice since it was a commercial for BLM.

"When you don't win that's just us winning, but when we lose you manipulated the rules so we have to change them so we can will again."

The sheer blindness of life long politicians saying (other) people should have term limits is mind numbing.

(09-25-2020 12:38 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote: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.

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Partly due to rising life expectancies, justices serve increasingly long tenures, on average now more than 25 years.

Term limits for high court justices have for years had support from a number of legal scholars on both the right and the left. Several polls in recent years have also shown large majorities of the American public support term limits.

The bill – the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act – is the first to try to set Supreme Court term limits by statute, according to Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial transparency group whose campaign for high court term limits has been gaining attention.

Some legal observers, including those who favor term limits, say they must be accomplished through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted as requiring life tenure for federal judges and justices.

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

“That’s perfectly consistent with their judicial independence and having a lifetime salary and a lifetime appointment,” Khanna said.

Link

Uh, how stupid are you effing Democrats. The CONSTITUTION gives them the appointment for a lifetime.

Exactly. I would suggest dumbazz Dems study the 22nd Amendment if they want to see how its done. And...how frickin clueless is Rueters? Let that be a lesson to news organizations who just run with whatever any Democrat hands them. Gee---I wonder why they never seem to fact check the Democrats---but they will use twisted logic and tortured hair splitting to try to show Republicans as being incorrect.

Completely in favor of term-limits and time-limits for all Federal office-holders, including most importantly Supreme Court justices.

But this will require an Amendment, not just a statute. Skeptical that will happen. But here’s hoping.

Term limits will solve nothing. It may even make things even worse. Particularly when it comes to the polarization of presidential campaigns.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!...ior-clause

"...ARTICLE III, SECTION 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour....

The Framers firmly believed that republican liberty could be secured only under the rule of law, and that the rule of law could not be guaranteed without an independent judiciary. The Good Behavior Clause of Article III anchors judicial independence by protecting judges from being removed at the whim of the other branches.

Guaranteed life-tenure for judges had become the rule in England after the Act of Settlement in 1701, though it did not come fully into effect until 1760. Prior to that time, many (including the crown) regarded the “king’s courts” as attached to the executive branch. But as William Blackstone summarized the law in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), “In this distinct and separate existence of the judicial power, in a peculiar body of men, nominated indeed, but not removeable at pleasure, by the crown, consists one main preservative of the public liberty.”

It was different in the colonies. Judges did not have same independence from the crown as they were coming to have in England, leading to the complaint in the Declaration of Independence, “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices. . . .” John Adams, wielding great influence during the Second Continental Congress, had pressed for judicial independence. In his Thoughts on Government (April 1776), he urged that judges “should hold estates for life in their offices; or, in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior....""