Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Releases Final Report

originally posted by: Ohanka
I wish I could get one of these easy jobs on a government commission writing boring papers nobody will ever read and will never be acted on.

They tend to pay rather well.

It's not difficult to get get these jobs, one only needs to sell their soul to the democrat party in the form of unspecified future favors.

Sorry, I'll pass.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

The reason that they are elected for life is to control corruption. If a supreme court justice just worked eight years max, he might be tempted by big money with a promise of a high paying job in the future to vote the way of the individual they are making a decision about. I wish they would have a regulation that anyone on the FDA high power jobs could not take a future job for a pharma company, but sadly most of those in high places there get jobs lobbying for or working for the Pharma companies. Just think of how corrupt our court system would become if the judges were not put in office for life.

All accurate, and excellent points!

I think we could, if we decided it were necessary, develop some way to reduce those likely ramifications for such a small number of term limited supremes.

We do it for presidents.

The numbers I've seen proposed in the past is 20-30 year terms, so effectively a pretty long career considering everything one must go through to get to that point in their career.

The objective being an effort to avoid another RBG Weekend At Bernie's escapade without significantly altering the makeup of the court.

I would not support supreme term limits any shorter than 20 years, but would be perfectly ok with 30 years.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

The reason that they are elected for life is to control corruption. If a supreme court justice just worked eight years max, he might be tempted by big money with a promise of a high paying job in the future to vote the way of the individual they are making a decision about. I wish they would have a regulation that anyone on the FDA high power jobs could not take a future job for a pharma company, but sadly most of those in high places there get jobs lobbying for or working for the Pharma companies. Just think of how corrupt our court system would become if the judges were not put in office for life.

All accurate, and excellent points!

I think we could, if we decided it were necessary, develop some way to reduce those likely ramifications for such a small number of term limited supremes.

We do it for presidents.

The numbers I've seen proposed in the past is 20-30 year terms, so effectively a pretty long career considering everything one must go through to get to that point in their career.

The objective being an effort to avoid another RBG Weekend At Bernie's escapade without significantly altering the makeup of the court.

I would not support supreme term limits any shorter than 20 years, but would be perfectly ok with 30 years.

Some of them are too old to be judges, their ability to think is compromised. Then the way they are put into office is actually politically orientated. Too young when they are put into office and they have not gained enough experience and could be a little whimsical like Cortez is. There are lots of factors. Some of those judges are very rational over eighty years of age, while some turn into puppets because they cannot think right even at sixty.

I do not have a solution. There must be a way, but letting politicians try to control the supreme court is not a good idea. There needs to be a preserved separation between congress and the white house in relation to the supreme court. Checks and balances need to be in place, and right now politicians are demanding the courts have to bow down to them, especially the Democrat party, consensus of the time and public opinion that is everchanging cannot be allowed to interfere with our constitutional rights. We are all supposed to have equal rights under law, nobody is supposed to have more rights than another person, no matter what their race is or their sexual preferences are.

a reply to: rickymouse


I agree with most of what you just said, thank you Mouse!

I also still think that eliminating the likelihood of another RBG vegetable 'serving' on scotus is worth exploring.

Not much can be done about 50 or even 80 year olds, but can't we at least prevent a 98 year old near-vegative state 'justice' from being rolled out every year for political reasons?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

But you can't do that.

When God handed down the 12 Amendments, on mount Independence National Historical Park, they were set in stone for all time (except for the two they removed, and 17 they added, later)!

And on the 7th day she created trolls, whose sole purpose in life is picking irrational internet fights with random people on subjects the trolls know nothing about.


Does chrony have anything polite, and maybe related to this topic to say?

Or just here to throw popcorn at people sitting in the front rows again.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

But you can't do that.

When God handed down the 12 Amendments, on mount Independence National Historical Park, they were set in stone for all time (except for the two they removed, and 17 they added, later)!

And on the 7th day she created trolls, whose sole purpose in life is picking irrational internet fights with random people on subjects the trolls know nothing about.

Does chrony have anything polite, and maybe related to this topic to say?

Or just here to throw popcorn at people sitting in the front rows again.

The Constitution should undergo reform. Put simply, times and situations change.

When the Constitution was penned, slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, no-one had international publishing issues, there were no notable anti-drug laws, taxation barely existed, settling disagreements by duel to the death was accepted, there were no noted motor vehicles or pollution problems (except for horse feces), public broadcast consisted of a 'shouty' guy with a bell, travel was hard and slow, and there were no federal agencies.

But some on here treat the Constitution as if it was handed down by God and immutable.

The US Constitution should be to the advantage of all US citizens and should be a framer of limits of latitude in allowing administrative and legal process to free-wheel based upon situational case-law, or bills passed. That means that case-law and/or passed Congressional bills should be struck-off - not considered as precedent, and the individual decisions overturned, if they contradict the Constitution, which overrules them.

Then there should be further deliberation as to if there is a case for Constitutional Review, as revealed by those cases.

I was not trolling. This is an important point of discussion, and is on-topic to the OP because term limits on supreme court positions would require Constitutional reform.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TheRedneck

But you can't do that.

When God handed down the 12 Amendments, on mount Independence National Historical Park, they were set in stone for all time (except for the two they removed, and 17 they added, later)!

And on the 7th day she created trolls, whose sole purpose in life is picking irrational internet fights with random people on subjects the trolls know nothing about.

Does chrony have anything polite, and maybe related to this topic to say?

Or just here to throw popcorn at people sitting in the front rows again.

The Constitution should undergo reform. Put simply, times and situations change.

When the Constitution was penned, slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, no-one had international publishing issues, there were no notable anti-drug laws, taxation barely existed, settling disagreements by duel to the death was accepted, there were no noted motor vehicles or pollution problems (except for horse feces), public broadcast consisted of a 'shouty' guy with a bell, travel was hard and slow, and there were no federal agencies.

But some on here treat the Constitution as if it was handed down by God and immutable.

The US Constitution should be to the advantage of all US citizens and should be a framer of limits of latitude in allowing administrative and legal process to free-wheel based upon situational case-law, or bills passed. That means that case-law and/or passed Congressional bills should be struck-off - not considered as precedent, and the individual decisions overturned, if they contradict the Constitution, which overrules them.

Then there should be further deliberation as to if there is a case for Constitutional Review, as revealed by those cases.

I was not trolling. This is an important point of discussion, and is on-topic to the OP because term limits on supreme court positions would require Constitutional reform.

Well written post, thank you for contributing to the discussion here!

I KNEW you could do it!


This entire debate is ABOUT our ever improving constitution, and so was rvw.

I haven't seen anyone here claim that out constitution shouldn't ever be updated.

That claim would be pretty absurd since our founders actually told us that it SHOULD be updated over time, gave us the necessary tools for updating it, and the fact that it HAS been updated many times when necessary.

a reply to: derfreebie

setting possible term limits.

Good