- 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: So NOW the LA Times wants Supreme Court term limits...
Posted on 7/19/17 at 8:57 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 7/19/17 at 8:57 pm to VoxDawg
Lifetime appointments are fine.
Legislatures need to be way more active about removing activist judges from the bench though.
The issue is that rogue judges run amok for decades.
Legislatures need to be way more active about removing activist judges from the bench though.
The issue is that rogue judges run amok for decades.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 8:58 pm
0
Posted on 7/19/17 at 9:24 pm to VoxDawg
The correct answer is 10 years.
Guarantees serving under 2 administrations.
Guarantees serving under 2 administrations.
Posted on 7/19/17 at 9:31 pm to steadytiger
quote:
can only be removed from office by impeachment.
Congress doesn't use this power, or at least threaten to, nearly enough. I would also support some sort of review system where the justices have to be reaffirmed every 10 years or so. Make them explain some of their controversial decisions.
Posted on 7/19/17 at 10:16 pm to VoxDawg
quote:they only serve one term
LA Times wants Supreme Court term limits
Posted on 7/19/17 at 10:27 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Why the Supreme Court needs 18-year term limits
Because they are losing.
quote:
The mere idea that Kennedy’s seat could get filled by President Trump and the conservative Republican Senate has sent many on the left into a tailspin of anxiety and despair.
And reactionary children...who know they might not win again for a long long time. Their view of the world has been rejected.
Posted on 7/19/17 at 10:31 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
To many liberals, Kennedy’s replacement with a strict originalist like Justice Neil Gorsuch would feel downright apocalyptic.
What an asinine and disingenuous comment.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 2:26 am to VoxDawg
The LA Times has less integrity than a carnival barker.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 3:00 am to chity
quote:
The Supreme Court has way too much power.
Who the hell downvotes this?
Yes, it's a co-equal branch of government but it has wrested way more power than it was ever intended to have.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 3:48 am to SoulGlo
Which only matters to liberals when they don't have it
In spite of all their whining they have been getting virtually everything they want from the court for decades. Now that they may not "the court has too much power"
There is a natural leftward lurch anyway because only one side respects precedent.
In spite of all their whining they have been getting virtually everything they want from the court for decades. Now that they may not "the court has too much power"
There is a natural leftward lurch anyway because only one side respects precedent.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 5:24 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren proposed that Supreme Court justices should serve 18-year terms, with a new judge appointed every two years. Each president would effectively get to nominate two justices for every term in office, and the Senate would agree to promptly consider them on a regular schedule.
I've actually said for a long time that lifetime appointments are bad but this is dumb.
The court would swing wildly if as above.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 6:52 am to DavidTheGnome
It does seem like a reasonable thing. Most people find the timing, meaning now that he republicans are in office, suspect at best and cry baby pandering at the worst
Posted on 7/20/17 at 7:20 am to SoulGlo
quote:
co-equal branch of government but it has wrested way more power than it was ever intended to have
More so than the Executive branch? Since Marbury the Judicial has been expanding its power, but no branch has gained more power since the 1860's, especially since the 1940's, than the Executive. In all of this the Legislative branch has lost the most, which is a shame since it is the one that answers most directly to the American people. Go figure.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 7:22 am to VoxDawg
All Federal judges should have term limits. Lifetime appointments are for the birds.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 7:35 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Odds that this article would have ever been published if Killery had won?
Remember how those folks all thought the Electoral College was a wonderful thing until it wasn't?
Posted on 7/20/17 at 7:40 am to VoxDawg
Or an age limit of 70 or so
Posted on 7/20/17 at 7:44 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Make them explain some of their controversial decisions.
Um. They publish opinions for appellate cases that, you know, explain their decisions.
How would reelection campaigns or (even worse) a Senate evaluation process help the above situation? You think election campaigns bring honest explanation and discourse? LOL.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 8:54 am to VoxDawg
I don't think it's necessarily wise to have an 85 year old in the court. I want someone of the most sound mind.
But 10-12 year stints isn't right either. Something like 'up to a 25 year term' seems more wise. Language that doesn't suggest the justice should serve out 25 but gives them the chance to do so.
But 10-12 year stints isn't right either. Something like 'up to a 25 year term' seems more wise. Language that doesn't suggest the justice should serve out 25 but gives them the chance to do so.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 12:46 pm to lionward2014
quote:
More so than the Executive branch? Since Marbury the Judicial has been expanding its power, but no branch has gained more power since the 1860's, especially since the 1940's, than the Executive. In all of this the Legislative branch has lost the most, which is a shame since it is the one that answers most directly to the American people
Executive too. Congress has pissed away their authority over time to the point that the checks and balances built into the Constitution are now considered "extreme," even by the GOPe.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:14 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
but it would take a constitutional amendment so it's highly unlikely to happen.
The left better be careful what they wish for when it comes to amending the Constitution. Republicans hold legislative control in 32 states and 5 states are split. Not that far away from having the 3/4 (38 states) needed to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. Balanced budget amendment anyone?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News