The Courts (not specific to either party)

deedsker said:
And so is congress. So both are term limited in your eyes.
Click to expand...
In a sense yes.    However, neither has a hard limit in terms of number of years for not being able to hold that certain position anymore. 

Guy Chamberlin said:
If we could bring the Supreme Court into the fold, would everyone be cool with that?

I think I would. Terms would not need to be identical among the three branches. 
Click to expand...
Yes.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Agree, I say lets  start with Congress and move to SCOTUS.   We just disagree with what to start with.   
Click to expand...
I agree Congress needs one, but lets be realistic, they will never vote for term limits on themselves. It's unrealistic and frankly is a waste of thought to say, until they agree to it we shouldn't do it for anyone else.

 
Archy1221 said:
Agree, I say lets  start with Congress and move to SCOTUS.   We just disagree with what to start with.   
Click to expand...




TG didn't express any specific preference to start with SCOTUS first, you're the only one arguing for one before the other. I'm curious why you have any preference on order at all?

 
Madcows said:
I agree Congress needs one, but lets be realistic, they will never vote for term limits on themselves. It's unrealistic and frankly is a waste of thought to say, until they agree to it we shouldn't do it for anyone else.
Click to expand...
If we’re talking realistic things, wouldn’t a change to SCOTUS  terms require a Constitutional Amendment?  How realistic is that?  
 

please correct if I have the wrong thought process about SCOTUS change  

 
Archy1221 said:
If we’re talking realistic things, wouldn’t a change to SCOTUS  terms require a Constitutional Amendment?  How realistic is that?  
 

please correct if I have the wrong thought process about SCOTUS change  
Click to expand...


I've seen debate on if it could be a law or if it needs to be a constitutional amendment. I side it would have to be an amendment. I suspect if it was passed as a law, a justice could challenge the law in court, and then we would have the same conundrum we have with Congress setting term limits on themselves. That said, while difficult, IMO, it's more plausible to get a constitutional amendment passed, while grandfathering current justices, then to get term limits in Congress.

 
Lorewarn said:
TG didn't express any specific preference to start with SCOTUS first, you're the only one arguing for one before the other. I'm curious why you have any preference on order at all?
Click to expand...
He can certainly speak for himself and I’m sure he will.   Since the discussion has been more than one post I took his overall tone as getting SCOTUS done first if only one happened at a time instead of simultaneous legislation.  
 

Why do I have an order??  Because Congress would get done if SCOTUS term limits were first.  There would be no incentive  or give and take left. 

 
Danny Bateman said:
Congressional term limits open the door to even more of our politics being driven by powerful entrenched lobbyists. 
 

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Really? Nobody has any thoughts on this.

It’s very clear some people have been in Washington too long. But term limits empower lobbyists who already have a disproportionate amount of power. Particularly in the House where terms are shorter, if they’re not devised very carefully, you’re just going to wind up facilitating legislation favoring whoever has the most powerful lobbies.

But simply turning a blind eye to obvious SCOTUS corruption with no accountability is not a viable idea, either.

 
Danny Bateman said:
Really? Nobody has any thoughts on this.

It’s very clear some people have been in Washington too long. But term limits empower lobbyists who already have a disproportionate amount of power. Particularly in the House where terms are shorter, if they’re not devised very carefully, you’re just going to wind up facilitating legislation favoring whoever has the most powerful lobbies.

But simply turning a blind eye to obvious SCOTUS corruption with no accountability is not a viable idea, either.
Click to expand...




I mean, I'm no expert political strategist but if that's a legitimate concern then put some meaty campaign finance and interference reform up along with it.

 
Danny Bateman said:
Really? Nobody has any thoughts on this.

It’s very clear some people have been in Washington too long. But term limits empower lobbyists who already have a disproportionate amount of power. Particularly in the House where terms are shorter, if they’re not devised very carefully, you’re just going to wind up facilitating legislation favoring whoever has the most powerful lobbies.

But simply turning a blind eye to obvious SCOTUS corruption with no accountability is not a viable idea, either.
Click to expand...
My thoughts are, I agree with everything you said.  But I do think the courts are different, they should not be swayed by lobbyist. Ever.

 
No surprise here.  

https://dnyuz.com/2024/08/05/justice-thomas-failed-to-reveal-more-private-flights-senator-says/

Justice Clarence Thomas failed to publicly disclose additional private travel provided by the wealthy conservative donor Harlan Crow, a top Democratic senator said in a letter on Monday.

Customs and Border Protection records revealed that the justice and his wife, Virginia Thomas, took a round trip between Hawaii and New Zealand in November 2010 on Mr. Crow’s private jet, according to the letter. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, writing to Mr. Crow’s lawyer, demanded that he supply more information about the financial relationship between the two men.
Click to expand...
The letter, part of an inquiry that Mr. Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has opened into Mr. Crow and the justice, comes as top Democrats have urged major changes to the Supreme Court, including an enforceable code of conduct.

Mr. Wyden said the latest revelation had only increased his misgivings about the relationship between the justice and Mr. Crow, a real estate magnate. “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill,” Mr. Wyden wrote.

Justice Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

A spokesman for Mr. Crow, Michael Zona, said that his lawyers had “already addressed Senator Wyden’s inquiries, which have no legal basis and are only intended to harass a private citizen.” It accused Mr. Wyden of a politically motivated effort to undermine the Supreme Court.

The statement added that Mr. Crow had “always followed applicable tax law.”

“We consider this matter settled and refer Senator Wyden to our previous correspondence,” the statement read.
Click to expand...

 
Danny Bateman said:
Really? Nobody has any thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
I’m of the opinion that term limits allow each retiring member of the Senate or House to freely vote their conscience during their last term without the fear of being primary’d or losing in the general election from lack of support.  
 

We as a country may get more crossover votes for legislation which ultimately would lead to more compromise.  
 

Term limits also allow for more new thought processes to come into Government instead of the same 30 yr members of Congress dominating what new members can say or think or vote on.  

 
Archy1221 said:
I’m of the opinion that term limits allow each retiring member of the Senate or House to freely vote their conscience during their last term without the fear of being primary’d or losing in the general election from lack of support.  
 

We as a country may get more crossover votes for legislation which ultimately would lead to more compromise.  
 

Term limits also allow for more new thought processes to come into Government instead of the same 30 yr members of Congress dominating what new members can say or think or vote on.  
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.  Just like businesses get stale and brittle and lose their competitive edge due to the lack of new innovative thought, govt fall into the same trap.  We have to always be about recreating ourselves and you cannot do that with long time old timers running the business of govt. 

 
Back
Top