- 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: What does Ted Cruz know that we don't about the SCOTUS
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:45 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:45 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Why do you think folks with lifetime appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate? If you think there are too many activists on the bench, maybe the problem is with the Senate acting as the gatekeeper. Maybe they aren't doing their jobs.
Most of Washington has not been doing it's job for decades. That's why we need to put the clamps down on them. I'm not solely interested in limiting the judiciary. We need to do the same with congress and the bureaucracy. My comments in the thread were simply aimed at the SCOTUS because of the topic.
0
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:46 am to boosiebadazz
Amending the constitution is now impossible
Somebody invite Ginsberg to that ranch in Texas
Somebody invite Ginsberg to that ranch in Texas
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:49 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
And you know how we fixed that? We amended the Constitution.
yes. That's exactly what I am advocating here. I'm not interested in simply patching shite up though. I'm in support of an overhaul that limits career politicians and the bureaucratic leviathan.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:53 am to gthog61
quote:
Amending the constitution is now impossible
Then we shouldn't get to reform until we learn to play nice with one another. Another reason I continue to be amazed at the foresight of the Framers.
If you guys want to separate in factions and just yell at each other without being able to compromise then you're stuck with the system we have and you can't change it. Only unless there is some semblance of national cohesion can you change the nature and structure of the government that affects us all.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:03 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
There were no term limits for the president either. Nobody seems to have a problem with that now though.
Yes, but they also didn't specifically say that a President would serve a life term. They did with Supreme Court Justices/Federal Judges.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:05 am to boosiebadazz
I think it is possible. Part of the problem is that people keep saying it's isn't when it in fact is. The part of the problem is that the establishment types on both sides of the isle have no integrity and are more than happy with the status quo.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:22 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
That's exactly what I am advocating here
quote:
you know how we fixed that? We amended the Constitution.
If we get a constitutional convention going, the biggest impact we could have is repealling the 17th amendment and get the states represented in the federal government again. Think about the red/blue map and what an impact this would have.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:30 am to SlackMaster
quote:
If we get a constitutional convention going
Also, implement term limits and create a balanced budget amendment that forces a 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:33 am to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
She was strongly urged to step down when obama was in position to nominate another hard left type and she refused. She'll have to be DUMPED out with Trump in office.
FIFY
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:50 am to Themole
1) RBG will likely outlive all of us. Bitter old ladies tend to live forever.
2) Are y'all counting John Roberts as one of the certain conservative votes?
3) All these sure-fire replacements all assume that the Republicans keep control of Congress, yes?
2) Are y'all counting John Roberts as one of the certain conservative votes?
3) All these sure-fire replacements all assume that the Republicans keep control of Congress, yes?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:26 pm to PoundFoolish
Ted's dad planning on "creating" another senior level federal vacancy?
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:07 pm to PoundFoolish
It's going to be Kennedy next unless one of them dies.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:13 pm to PoundFoolish
RBG will never voluntarily step down as long as Trump is president.
It's gotta be someone else.
It's gotta be someone else.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:18 pm to jb4
quote:
I would guess Kennedy and Thomas retire under trump with Thomas being this summer. No way Ginsburg quits
Justice Thomas can write a 10 page book during his retirement detailing all of his oral arguments during his time on the bench.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:20 pm to PoundFoolish
Old hag is going out feet first!
Posted on 2/24/17 at 2:28 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
No. We need term limits. As it stands now, there is nothing preventing them from overstepping their bounds, not even time. They should get 10 years max.
NO. You are wrong. They do not have term limits for a reason. They are the bulwark designed to protect us from the Presidency.........
How in the world would term limits prevent them from judicial activism, anyway?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 2:29 pm to montanagator
quote:
Ted's dad planning on "creating" another senior level federal vacancy?
quote:
montanagator
Posted on 2/24/17 at 3:49 pm to PoundFoolish
Clarence Thomas.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News