- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cruz/Rooney to Dems on Constitutional Amendments: Hold my beer
Posted on 1/4/19 at 11:55 am to Covingtontiger77
Posted on 1/4/19 at 11:55 am to Covingtontiger77
quote:
WHERE THE HELL WAS THIS A YEAR AGO WHEN THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES?
He tried it in 2017 as well.
0
Posted on 1/4/19 at 11:56 am to Bard
Add term limits to all lifetime judges and everyone should support. True bipartisan support.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 11:58 am to Redleg Guy
quote:
Add term limits to all lifetime judges and everyone should support.
Not term limits, they should not be subject to re-nomination or election, that is the entire point. But I would fully support an age ceiling of say 70/75 or so for the federal bench.
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 11:58 am
Posted on 1/4/19 at 11:59 am to Redleg Guy
quote:
Add term limits to all lifetime judges and everyone should support. True bipartisan support.
You need an Amendment for that one baw.
Good luck.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:03 pm to RemyLeBeau
quote:
Would term limits bring about a new "shadow government"
Certainly possible. Politicians could pass deals to increase the power of appointed bureaucrats in exchange for guaranteed positions within those bureaucracies after office.
I’m less interested in term limits as I am getting big money the frick out of politics. Until you fix that issue, term limits wouldn’t be very effective.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:05 pm to Centinel
quote:
You need an Amendment for that one baw.
Judicial branch is the only place the founders really fricked up.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:06 pm to Big_Slim
quote:
Judicial branch is the only place the founders really fricked up.
How so? The Constitution barely even mentions the judiciary. It sets up SCOTUS and tells Congress to do the rest.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:07 pm to Big_Slim
Was it as common at the time for judges to just outright undermine the system?
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:09 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
The Constitution barely even mentions the judiciary.
Because this.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:10 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Was it as common at the time for judges to just outright undermine the system?
Of course not, but the whole point of the document was to have the foresight to prevent potential abuses of power in the future. I guess they didn’t think the path to tyranny could be paved by the court system.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:11 pm to Big_Slim
Marbury v. Madison didn't help things any.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:13 pm to Big_Slim
What could they have done differently?
In no way could they have foreseen how big the country would get or how litigious society would become. It’s a Constitution, not a set of statutes, it’s not the function of the document to establish the complete organization/mechanisms of the government.
Similar to the executive branch, the Constitution doesn’t establish the executive departments. It allows congress to do so according to the needs of the country at the time. The judiciary was no difference.
As with most things in this arena, blame congress. They are the body who has created the federal bench, and they are the ones who chose not to rein it in.
In no way could they have foreseen how big the country would get or how litigious society would become. It’s a Constitution, not a set of statutes, it’s not the function of the document to establish the complete organization/mechanisms of the government.
Similar to the executive branch, the Constitution doesn’t establish the executive departments. It allows congress to do so according to the needs of the country at the time. The judiciary was no difference.
As with most things in this arena, blame congress. They are the body who has created the federal bench, and they are the ones who chose not to rein it in.
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:20 pm to Bard
quote:
The amendment, co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),
Rubio is just anybody's bitch, isn't he? On one hand he co-sponsors a bill like this, striking at the entrenched power in Washington, on the other, he's part of the gang of 8, sucking off the likes of Songbird McCain. I guess he's like most republicans these days, further the democrat agenda when you can get away with it, and the republican agenda when you have to.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:20 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
What could they have done differently?
I wish I knew enough to answer this intelligently but I’m not really sure. All I know is when you can be a few judicial appointments away from establishing hate speeech laws as constitutional effectively wiping out the first ammendment, then something’s not functioning correctly. Human interpretation is flawed, and there should be safeguards for when these interpretations, often based on political motivations, are objectively wrong.
quote:
As with most things in this arena, blame congress. They are the body who has created the federal bench, and they are the ones who chose not to rein it in.
Oh I definitely do. And maybe no document could have completely removed the possibility of tyranny when you are working with a retarded populace that would prefer enslavement so long as it’s comfortable.
ETA: side note, judicial review wasn’t established until years later and people at the time weren’t even sure if it was a real thing. So best thing they could have done is elaborate on the process and limitations of that
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:23 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
Exactly, just a false flag, look how Im with ya, when he knows there is no way it would pass.
You know how it damn sure doesn't ever pass? By not giving it a chance.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:27 pm to Big_Slim
quote:
I guess they didn’t think the path to tyranny could be paved by the court system.
That's where they screwed up. But then, who could have envisioned a socialist hack of a judge, who doesn't believe in capitalism, or a republican form of government?
Problem is, we don't tar and feather fricks like that, the way they did in their day.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:28 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
can they all do insider trading or will they join Martha Stewart
they created the loophole to do that legally by having an "investing firm" invest for them so they can claim no personal connection, direction, or sugestion how or where to invest the money, and therefor they cannot be considered as trading on inside info since they dont have any say where their money is invested
. the investing companies just get anonymous tips on how congress will vote or approve spending to let them know where to invest to make millions overnight so you see its all pure luck and there is no coordinated cheating going on, nothing to see there, move along
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:29 pm to Bard
Make it happen.
You should not be a career politician
You should not be a career politician
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 1/4/19 at 12:30 pm to bamarep
quote:
Oh boy.
Now this will be fun to watch play out.
Why?
A republican house/senate couldn't get this passed 2 years ago.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 1:02 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
I assume this means Cruz plans to not run again after his second term is done?
I don’t agree with the “offensive pass interference” rule, but I’ll damn sure take the call if it’s in my favor.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News