Good argument for SCOTUS term limits

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

IMO, Brad summed it up nicely

Actually you're right.  (I left the "laughing" response because I thought it was an cleverly efficient response.)

I am certainly not opposed to term limits, I am just leery of potential unintended results. After all, we're talking human behavior 

I think the relationship between 'big' money/corporations/lobbyists-consultants -  the whole political complex - is so complicated that any "easy" solution may make things worse.  Which, of course, we won't understand until after the fact.  After all, we're talking human behavior/economics/politics. It's not predictable.

But, after thinking about it a little, I have concluded why not try term limits?  After all, I am a ******* liberal, I'm supposed to be tolerant of change. 

And God knows, we need some change. 

So you won me over.

 

 

[SocialCircle 570]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I wasn't saying you personally hold this position for the reason I stated.  I just know that Obama picked two SCOTUS judges with a chance to nominate a third - and his third pick would have altered the makeup of the court since he would have been replaced Scalia.  Don't recall any suggestions for SCOTUS term limits then.  Clinton got to choose two, same silence on the matter.  I could be wrong.  Maybe there were a few articles on the subject.  But I certainly don't remember the volume of articles suggesting it back then.

I'm not even saying it's a bad idea.  I just, for some, question their motives as to why it matters to them now.

I’ve noticed something similar as it relates to the reactions to the death of Scalia as compared to the death of RBG. Overall it is striking how disrespectful the left was then as compared to the right now. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I’ve noticed something similar as it relates to the reactions to the death of Scalia as compared to the death of RBG. Overall it is striking how disrespectful the left was then as compared to the right now. 

Everyone lionizes their own heroes and demonizes the other's.  Scalia was lauded and revered by right-leaning publications and scoffed at by some on the left.  RBG is lauded and revered by the left and some on the right are tweeting things like "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" or calling her a "miserable hag."  People often suck.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually you're right.  (I left the "laughing" response because I thought it was an cleverly efficient response.)

I am certainly not opposed to term limits, I am just leery of potential unintended results. After all, we're talking human behavior 

I think the relationship between 'big' money/corporations/lobbyists-consultants -  the whole political complex - is so complicated that any "easy" solution may make things worse.  Which, of course, we won't understand until after the fact.  After all, we're talking human behavior/economics/politics. It's not predictable.

But, after thinking about it a little, I have concluded why not try term limits?  After all, I am a ******* liberal, I'm supposed to be tolerant of change. 

And God knows, we need some change. 

So you won me over.

 

 

@bigbird 

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

@bigbird 

Hey!  I'm not "crazy".  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hey!  I'm not "crazy".  

😜

[AURex 2,016]

There are multiple proposals for improving the legitimacy and functionality and fairness of the SCOTUS.

1. Impose term limits, like 18 years, for every SCOTUS justice.
2. Impose minimum and maximum age limits. (Who wants a 20 year old dufus for SCOTUS? Or a 90 year old?)
3. Establish a system where every presidential term would open 2 justice positions. (this is ties in to 1)
4. The SCOTUS pulls in mutually agreed upon judges from appellate courts who serve for a week or two as added justices. Fir example 4 Republican-apointed SCOTUS and 4 Democratic appointed SCOTUS agree upon an additional 3 Appellate judges to contribute to ruling on cases over a specifies period.
5. Define boundaries of areas that federal courts cannot rule on.  (Like, federal courts cannot overrule state supreme courts on certain kinds of issues)
6. SCOTUS members are selected at random from all the Appellate Courts, equally numbered by party of appointment.
7.  SCOTUS members are elected by a non-political process, such as election by members of the American Bar Association.

 

[AUfaninNM 20]

On 9/24/2020 at 1:01 PM, homersapien said:

(Also, FWIW,  I think Obama's selections were far more toward the moderate side of the spectrum that what we see from Trump and the Federalist Society.)

 

I didn't realize Kagan & Sotomayor were viewed as "moderate."  Axios reports Sotomayor as the most liberal member of SCOTUS:

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-justices-ideology-52ed3cad-fcff-4467-a336-8bec2e6e36d4.html

& in that same report, Kagan's score is roughly as far to the liberal side as the score for Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) is to the conservative side.  I'm not sure what the leanings are of the political scientists who came up with these scores, but Axios is certainly no conservative outlet.

[DKW 86 7,431]

"I dont like the Supreme Court-The Supreme Court must change!"
"I dont like the results of the Electoral College-The Electoral College must be wiped out."
"I dont like the all the corruption in Washington DC, unless it benefits my side then it is okay!!!!!"

We need term limits...FOR CONGRESS. "That might mean my side loses power on a few committees, SCREW THAT!
"I like whatever AT THE MOMENT seems to benefit my side of the political aisle. So 4 years from now when it blows up in my face I can take up a permanent position as a Political Howler Monkey screaming about how all this is bad for America."

One of the things that FDR did that is criticised by everyone was trying to pack the Supreme Court. Cooler heads prevailed and life went on.

Calm Down Francis...