Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SCOTUS term-limit bill...

The founders also never considered that congress would establish a pension plan so they can stay there without working at real jobs. Professional lobbying is something else that we really don't need.

Yes but then must declare before hand who will make that determination or you are right back at square one. Cheers NC

Last I read a while back is 500 in Congress and 35,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC.

Now, besides Soros, who really sets the direction of our Country?

I just tried to address that question from Brother JakeBlues.

And PACs and lobbyists.

george "magog" bush was a liberal who is in love with mr michelle obama and voted for hillary. bill clinton was 100 times more conservative then the drunken coke head bush

I just had a chance to read the story. It's a typical Democrat tactic of trying to subvert the United States Constitution.

My concern is for the Cognizant aspect, e.g.. Drugs required for treatment, pain medications for terminal cancer, etc.

Think,,, RBG. There are a myriad of tests to prove mental competency.


The Physical side of the equation:
Someone wheelchair bound like, say, Texas Governor Abbot would cause me no concern, per se.

There are ways to make it so every president gets to appoint a justice. Rapid swings in the court are socially destabilizing, so probably moving in that direction is wise.

One more nomination and placement by Trump will eliminate swings for quite a while.

Jmo

So you advocate changing or subverting the Constitution?

I would be much more in favor for
" no exemption for congress and lifetime appointed persons of laws and regulations that are imposed on citizens "
If it is good enough for citizens it should be good enough for everyone.

Guessing you think 'We the People" are worse off after the Citizens United ruling then?

Not at all. Term limits are within the scope of the constitution. If we make the limit 17 years (or something like that) it would most likely play out that every president would get a shot at appointing somebody. It’s been studied out. Not sure why we went to be hollering for people to die just because we don’t like their politics.

Do you mean like during our Revolution? We are very close to the same unbridgeable world views in our nation.

I don't believe that's a requirement.

It may not be.

I may not be happy with the results if I let a lawyer who has never seen the underside of a car hood work on my vehicle though.

Actually, I think it would require an amendment. I think it was Arkansas that passed a state law limiting congress critters terms. The SC struck it down as the states have no jurisdiction over federal offices.

An amendment requires EITHER a convention of the states, then ratification by the states, OR passage by 2/3 of both chambers, then ratification by the states.

By putting Term limits on a SC judge you are either changing, subverting, or ignoring Article 3 of the Constitution, it really is that simple.

Section 1 of Article 3 States,

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The life term was meant to take away all bias of the court, it provides for no pressure on a judge to be re-elected or lose their jobs due to a particular decision.

A SC judge may be removed by impeachment if they are not doing their job, making unconstitutional decisions, bla, bla, bal, ect.

Our forefathers were smart individuals with balls that put their lives and the lives of their families on the line to create a Country of the likes the world has never seen and they succeeded remarkably well. Don't be so arrogant to think you know more than what they did.