Agreed. Now talk about congressional term limits
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
53 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19696 readers
3772 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Term limits for congress first.
Do you really find the ordering important?
I gotta control the conversation somehow.
Did feinstein leave yet?
The problem with term limits for the Court is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. And in the current environment it would be impossible to get an amendment through. One party operates on a political platform of spite, and now that Nancy Pelosi has come out in favor of it there is zero chance of an amendment getting enough support to happen.
Expansion is a possibility, though, because it's well established that the size of the Court is set by Congress. If Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency, it may be worth nuking the Filibuster for. Only after expanding the the Court do you go to Republicans and say "Do you want to work with us on an amendment for term limits for Justices, or do you want Joe Biden to nominate 4 judges to life terms all at once?"
AFAIK, the Constitution does not state that Supreme Court Justices have life terms. It is vague and has been interpreted to maybe mean life terms but it doesn't explicitly say that.
Expansion is dumb. Then everytime one party is in control and the supreme court is leaning the other way they will expand it. Sooner or later everyone will be a supreme court justice.
The number of judges has been changed by Congress quite a few times for various reasons.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.
The best justification I've seen for a specific number that's not pulled out of thin air is to set the number the same as the number of federal appellate courts, currently 12, with each Justice essentially overseeing an appellate circuit. This is something they already do, but it is no longer a 1:1 ratio with only 9 Justices.
It seems like 12 would be undesirable because of ties. Perhaps 12 associates plus 1 chief justice, for 13 total?
I'm aware that even with an odd number you can still reach ties when a justice recuses, or when the court is temporarily lacking its full complement.
You could just say a tie kicks it back down to a lower court.
That's exactly what the actual policy on ties is. Last decision from the lower court stands, but does not set a precedent.
No matter how many justices you set up on the court, you have to have a policy on ties. But I think with an odd number you do a lot to reduce the frequency of tied decisions.
lol. negative post and comment on their empty profile. but only been here 3days. they need to go back to reddit and twitter
Coulda used this energy 3 years ago Nancy, just sayin'
She’s been working up her stamina.
Not that it matters, the democrats don’t actually have a senate majority except in name.
It would be great, but it's only part of the story. Judicial appointments should not be the poltical show that they are. It's too late to turn that ship around easily, and impossible without both sides of the aisle agreeing to it.
But becoming a judge should not be poltical at all. As long as they are it's a problem that won't be solved with just term limits
Religious Conservatives started grooming judges back in the 80s in order to force their will on the American people.
I'm tired of religous conservatives shoving their lifestyle down everyone's throats.
We all are, but they have caused so much damage to their brand the numbers of religious Americans are plummeting.
I like the idea of a new justice added every two years. The most recent 9 are the ones that matter then everyone else takes like a retired/senior standby position.
I'm a fan of a Presidential review every four years off cycle of the Presidential election. A Presidential review would allow a President to replace a Supreme Court justice if justified (ethics, crimes, etc).
im less worried about age and more worried about blatant corruption of the court. age can be a problem but corruption can happen to any of them.
Luckily we have a solid system in place for impeachment and removal of corrupt justices and it only requires a faithful and honest congress to enact.
Bahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about maximum terms for Congress?
Absolutely not, I believe term limits give more power to lobby groups. If voters every two to six years feel their Congressional representation is doing well why should they be punished by term limits. I'd rather we open the door to Congressional Recalls for House and Senate members.
This is nonsense; corruption takes time. New members will be more resistant to lobbying, not less.
And if they're fine voting in a dementia sufferer because they recognize her name on the ballot? That's the biggest problem currently is uninformed voters just keep voting the same people in. Not because they like what they're doing but because they recognize the name.
The voters choose their representative, but the parties put who is on the ticket. I'm not a fan of Bobert but her district voted her into office twice. That's on them. If they vote in Mickey Mouse then they live with that choice.
So let's get rid of every term limit then?
I do believe we need checks on the Supreme Court and whether that be a term limit or a Presidential review every four years, off cycle of the Presidential election, either works.
Term limits work well for unelected positions. Judges are a perfect example of that.
We have the best team limits available. They are two years for Congress and six years for the Senate.
Those who vote simply need to make those limits happen. Often they choose not to do so.
Expand the court!
How many new seats? Would you be okay if Republicans expanded when they are in power?
They essentially did just that by denying Dems the ability to put forward someone when repubs controlled the senate. I'm not sure expanding the court is the right move but Dems can't keep getting absolutely rolled by repubs who refuse to play by the rules or established norms