Dems introduce term-limit bill for Supreme Court

[butters]

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=ef965ca4f3f049969a9bc85a99767de8&ei=6

 

[butters]

this would create a major shake-up in how things are done, with the longest-serving judges stepping back at the rate of one every two years as the newest steps up; after 18 years the first 'new' appointee would then step down to make room for the 10th, maintaining 9 justices sitting on the main bulk of cases at any one time.

sounds fair. is it likely to get bipartisan support given the last 3 appointees have been trump-specials and term-limits have been mumbled about by all sides?

 

[Bn2f]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=ef965ca4f3f049969a9bc85a99767de8&ei=6

Ok. Let’s call this a start.
At first glance, I like the 18 years, basically giving a justice 1 generation of adjudication. But this doesn’t address any of the ethics issues people are seeing in the court now and I’m sadly gonna predict this goes nowhere because there are no republicans signing on to this and none probably will want to even address this until the court one day shifts to a liberal majority which they intend that to be never.

 

[butters]

it doesn't 'boot' any justices, but allows them to continue serving in their original capacity as they step back from the bulk of cases, and coming in 2-yearly intervals means they'd get appointed by whichever president was in the WH at the time without their choices being blocked 'because'.

am i missing something, because this sounds a really fair way forward?

 

[Bn2f]

It is. It’s fair.
But I’m jaded with the overturning of Roe and Affirmative Action and what red states are rushing/pushing into the pipeline for this corrupt partisan court to rule on in the near future.
This fair attempt at court reform is going to stall because republicans know they hold the current advantage.
I am still in the camp of stacking the courts now. I’d even be ok with 5 Merrick Garland type moderates. Anything but this hack, perjury riddled conservative majority.

 

[Bn2f]

Anything is better than the current status quo. This won’t be derailed by my whims or the leftist progressive wing - we need either Manchin or Sinema in the senate to sign on and then things will get interesting. Let’s at least bring the fight Dems, c’mon!

 

[butters]

which judge would be the first stepping back if this saw the stamp of new legislation? *goes to look*

according to wiki: that would be clarence thomas, then roberts, then alito...with the last four having been confirmed in 2017 (Gorsuch), 2018 (kavanaugh), 2020 (barrett) and 2022 (Jackson)

getting thomas out first would suit a lot of republicans as well as dems, given his credibility even if he'd still be allowed to serve on in a reduced capacity. Sure, i'd love to see him out completely...maybe that will come another way, maybe it's the sour pill needed to gain repub backing.

and those last four seem almost to be setting the precedent of one every two years as a norm: before them there was a 7-year gap between Gorsuch and Sotomayor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

one every two years, with the stepping back of the longest serving at the same time would also put a stop to any 'court packing' in play, no?

 

[Bn2f]

I’m for it. I’m for anything. I’m just skeptical. I mean, as always, here are 2 people from the same choir singing to each other. What does a conservative republican think of this and do they have an alternative? Sadly, as indicated in thread after thread here - as long as they are in power then they don’t seem to care about corruption. You would think they’d be for it but, again, I await to hear their opinions.

 

[butters]

seems to me the 2 year thing is uber reasonable: looking back over the last lot since thomas, there's only been 2 notable gaps

1991—thomas
1993—Ginsberg
1994—Breyer
GAP
2005—roberts
2006—alito
2009—Sotomayor
2010—Kagan
GAP
2017—Gorsuch
2018—kavanaugh
2020—barrett
2022—Jackson

 

[Fuzzy1975]

seems to me the 2 year thing is uber reasonable: looking back over the last lot since thomas, there's only been 2 notable gaps

1991—thomas
1993—Ginsberg
1994—Breyer
GAP
2005—roberts
2006—alito
2009—Sotomayor
2010—Kagan
GAP
2017—Gorsuch
2018—kavanaugh
2020—barrett
2022—Jackson

In the Supreme Court of Canada there is a mandatory age of retirement of 75. Simple.

 

[butters]

Where is the term limit bill for Congress?

fuck off

 

[Fuzzy1975]

fuck off Bobo

fixed your post....

 

[butters]

In the Supreme Court of Canada there is a mandatory age of retirement of 75. Simple.

yeah

having said that, though, just because one hits a certain age doesn't mean they've lost all the wisdom of experience they've accrued leading up to that number.

having a set of judges (which will take time, admittedly) who can take on that other work jamming up the SCOTUS time-lines and work-load will see a more effective ratio of hearings heard to waiting to be heard.

 

[butters]

answer the question little bitch

oh, look at you, so manly, so bossy

fuck off. that's the only reply of mine you're worthy of.

 

[Bn2f]

seems to me the 2 year thing is uber reasonable: looking back over the last lot since thomas, there's only been 2 notable gaps

1991—thomas
1993—Ginsberg
1994—Breyer
GAP
2005—roberts
2006—alito
2009—Sotomayor
2010—Kagan
GAP
2017—Gorsuch
2018—kavanaugh
2020—barrett
2022—Jackson

This is more than fair. This, the more I look at it, is a gift to conservatives. This puts the court on the ballot every 4 years and it’s their voting bloc who consistently put SCOTUS as a reason for presidential voting. A republican president could still have a majority, just not forever.

Also, I asked for a conservative opinion so, yeah, can we get a mulligan on that one?

 

[butters]

woof!

fuck off

 

[ll74]

Get intelligent enough to debate

You first

Your only position is "but white people are the victim"

 

[butters]

yap yap!

fucking despise little yappy things demanding attention. oh well *click* muted!

ah, that's better

 

[Fuzzy1975]

yeah

having said that, though, just because one hits a certain age doesn't mean they've lost all the wisdom of experience they've accrued leading up to that number.

having a set of judges (which will take time, admittedly) who can take on that other work jamming up the SCOTUS time-lines and work-load will see a more effective ratio of hearings heard to waiting to be heard.

I agree, but it also makes sure there is a rotation of members, so one "age"group can't dominate the citizens, with their views, if their views are not evolving. Also it's relativity easy to remove a SC justice given there are rules of ethics.

You can bank on this, if Clarence Thomas was a Justice in our court, he would be gone.

 

[phrodeau]

My post not only dismantled the entire point of this thread but it also exposes the Democrats’ actions as nothing but a pathetic stunt pulled by the most power hungry lunatics.

All Republicans have to do to shut this shit down is ask why Democrats are focusing on the Supreme Court when term limits don’t exist for the House and many members of the House have been in their seats longer than any current Supreme Court justice has even been a judge.

It is time to kill the cancer that is the Democrat party. You inbred filth didn’t even know what a Supreme Court Justice was until 20 years ago.

Members of the House need to be re-elected every two years, and survive redistricting every ten. Term limits for them are low priority.

 

[phrodeau]

“A glass of water with a D next to their name could be elected in her district”
-Nancy Pelosi speaking about AOC(despite the irony of a life long House member saying this about a freshman)

Democrats in extremely blue districts don’t run for shit and haven’t for an entire generation. The only time Democrats kick out worthless criminals in the House is to replace them with even worse criminals. Democrat voters never do research on candidates and will even re-elect felons who have been arrested and sent to jail long ago. And for the most powerful Republicans they stay in their seat for decades doing virtually nothing because they say that Democrats will win the seat if Republicans don’t choose them as “the most electable candidate” so their hardest election is a 10 point victory over a left wing lunatic in a more conservative area.

50 years ago House Representatives had to worry about being re-elected but now it is only Republicans and the Democrats in swing districts that swindled voters with their tired old “moderate” shtick that have to actually win elections.

AOC’s district was Republican during the Reagan-Bush terms.

You want fair representation in Congress, start by eliminating gerrymandering.

 

[Bn2f]

“A glass of water with a D next to their name could be elected in her district”
-Nancy Pelosi speaking about AOC(despite the irony of a life long House member saying this about a freshman)

Democrats in extremely blue districts don’t run for shit and haven’t for an entire generation. The only time Democrats kick out worthless criminals in the House is to replace them with even worse criminals. Democrat voters never do research on candidates and will even re-elect felons who have been arrested and sent to jail long ago. And for the most powerful Republicans they stay in their seat for decades doing virtually nothing because they say that Democrats will win the seat if Republicans don’t choose them as “the most electable candidate” so their hardest election is a 10 point victory over a left wing lunatic in a more conservative area.

50 years ago House Representatives had to worry about being re-elected but now it is only Republicans and the Democrats in swing districts that swindled voters with their tired old “moderate” shtick that have to actually win elections.

Well I read what you had to say and I also wrote out a long and lengthy, and I believed thoughtful, reply to all your points, highlighted by the 1995 U.S. v. Thornton decision specifically on House term limits, but then I realized who I was talking to and concluded everyone else here were already right - you’re a racist asshole.

 

[dkovic77]

The country was overwhelmingly Republican in the 1980s before Clinton destroyed everything but if they fucked up enough a Democrat could still win those districts because Republican voters are far more intelligent and would vote for a more qualified Democrat if that was an option.

Even deep blue districts in DC today were reasonably competitive in the 80s.

If Trump ran against Biden in the 1980s with their campaigns being the exact same as the 2020 election then Trump would win every single state by 30 points or more and win damn near every district completely dwarfing the “Reagan revolution” easily. This is why Tim Poole’s prediction of a possible 50 state landslide for 2020 happened, he didn’t know how much Democrats have destroyed this country in 40 years.

And as for gerrymandering, that is required because of multiculturalism now. Get a new talking point

If a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped.

And your intelligent Republican voters did vote for a more qualified democratic candidate in 2020. The unintelligent ones, only think it was stolen because the Cheeto has told them it was. But that is another thread.

As for term limits, that is a great discussion that should need an amendment to pass, like 22.

As to the Supreme Court, I’m not exactly sure it would need to be done with an 18 year rotation (while that idea does seem very equitable) although removing the advise and consent of the Senate should again require an amendment.

I would suggest a simple change in senate rules to confirm potential justices would be sufficient enough. During a presidents term, their first nomination can be a simple majority in the senate for confirmation. But their second nomination goes to 60, their third goes to 70. (If there happens to be that many).

This change bring in a potential partisan juror on the first confirmation but the subsequent jurors would need to be able to be confirmed by a more representative group of the senate.

The other change, the senate should need to take up the confirmation within 3 months of the vacancy. It would give plenty of time for confirmation hearings as Presidents always have a list of potential jurors at the ready.

 

[YDB95]

“A glass of water with a D next to their name could be elected in her district”
-Nancy Pelosi speaking about AOC(despite the irony of a life long House member saying this about a freshman)

Once again you put quotation marks around words that do not appear anywhere else on the Internet. Which speaks volumes about just how trustworthy anything else you say is.

 

[jaF0]

^^^^

Nancy Pelosi Keeps Criticizing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez​

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes another shot at socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), says a "glass of water" with a "D" next to it "would win" in Ocasio-Cortez's district ...