The left must be smelling defeat...

Hahaha!


Choke on it use mudderfuggers.

Children
Spoiled children

If Trump wins and we have enough state level support, we should pass an amendment that locks in the number of SCOTUS judges after we secure a 6-3 majority.

Haha.

You knew something like that was coming from those aszholes. And there will probably be more of the same.

Wouldn’t hurt to put a clear definition of “fit for service “ attached to the job.

Who gets to decide that? What are the criteria? It's 90% subjective in the eyes of the person evaluating the candidate.

Their dear departed hero Ruth didn’t think much of the idea, did she?

That's a given with the leftist who want to take over this country. They are trying desperately to get any kind of foothold that they can use to circumvent the constitution. They are like spoiled brats who want to change every rule or law anytime it suits them to get the results they want.

All show and no go

He will get 5. The next oldest is a liberal male and I think Clarence would retire before the end of the next 4.

That's rich. How about an 18-year term limit in the House of Representatives?

I think I like that better.

after the election and Trump wins, which they'll have to cheat like hell to beat, and the senate stays Repub. They need to get Thomas to retire and put a 40 year old ultra conservative constitutionalist in his place.

Can they find one who is black?

How about term limits for congress

Hershel Walker 😃

Instead of stacking the deck on the SCOTUS, if Trump wins, do the opposite and REDUCE the # of justices to 7 and have the Senate REMOVE 2. Then vote on an amendment to lock in 7 forever.

Well, he's very accomplished. Does he have a law degree?

Was Elena Kagan ever actually a judge anywhere before her appointment?

Good question.

the Cray tapes are turning in the cranium but not coming back with anything.

I think there must have been some magnetic interference, probably some geological anomaly I passed by one day.

Or maybe it was the Testor's??

Nor did she think much of the Constitution.. Picking and choosing which parts she wanted to uphold and which parts she wanted to legislate over From the Bench.

Age limits/term limits for SCOTUS and congress, need to get rid of them before senility impairs their ability to think clearly. Although there are examples of both genders who have overstayed their ability to think clearly, the females seem to become real dingbats once they get past retirement age.

Not going to happen without a Constitutional Amendment.

females become dingbats.... LOL park your ass you dinosaur

Unlike Trump I don't recall Ginsberg suffering a series of mini strokes and slurring her words

Nancy has always struck me as the chief arsonist in charge.

I want a new house...

How can I burn my old house down and not get caught?

Now that I have burnt my house down without being caught how much will insurance pay me to build a new one?

Fight with the insurance for twice that money.

Shaft the contractor that is actually rebuilding my house and pocket 50% of the money to upgrade all of my contents.

Complain that I am the victim of someone else's malfeasance.

Term limits for Congress!

That's the best you can come up with to defend the geriatric washed out dolt that your party chose? He is the only one that wouldn't have ended up in jail......yet.

Every government employee position should have term limits, right down to the custodians of the schools. Particularly the politicians to a man/woman.

Osky

The only way that can happen is a constitutional convention. It takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to pass an amendment and there's no way they'd vote to limit themselves.

A constitutional convention is way overdue. There is a very good reason that provision and possibility exist. The only ones who fear it’s happening are the Kings and Queens who have feathered their own nests at the upper ends of the political spectrum.
It should be mandatory every 20 years or so.

Osky

No one I ever talked to would argue against a constitutional amendment for term limits.,

I've always been against congressional term limits as it takes away ballot box choice. However, the way congress has gone the last 20 years, I don't see any other way to clean out that snake pit.

Part (1)

Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

But I don’t think term limits for members of Congress requires a Constitutional Amendment.

SC yes, Congress not sure.

Term limits won't fix anything. The problem lies in the unelected alphabet agencies.

8 years total for the house and the senate. No where in America can you fail at your job for this long and still be employed.



Clyde

Problem with term limits is that you can have wild swings in power both ways.

If term limits were in place in 2008, Obama might have had 65 Senators and a 100 seat advantage in the House with all of the anti Bush sentiment.

The constitution specifies the terms of both houses but it doesn't specify a limit on how many terms they can serve. A precedent was established when the president was limited to 2 terms by an amendment. It will take another one to limit congress.

when all we've got to choose from is a bunch of humans and many of them possessing strange ideas there's no one good answer.

one can construct a scenario to suit one's position, but in 50 years there's no tellin' what our descendents will be facing.

btw just got back from drivers services to have my license re newed. i can stand flat footed and say there's diversity about.

a long line that snaked around the outside of the bldg. everybody in social distance. thank god it wasn't raining.

I understand, and maybe there should be longer than 8 years. I can say this though, the founders never intended for our reps to be lifelong appointments.


Clyde

Something along the lines of how major airlines evaluate their pilots as being fit for duty. Their responsibility levels are fairly high in a comparable regard.

Not sure if that answered your question or not.

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.

HEAR ! HEAR !

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.

That was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that got enough Republicans elected to control the House for the first time in 40 years. Of course, the Congress refused to vote it in. Where else would people like Gerald Nadler get a job?

+1

No term limits was a mistake!

I agree, but don’t have the answer

The founders never envisioned 90 year old, brain dead, dump phucqs refusing to step down when they clearly aren't capable of performing their duty to a level deserved of the position and responsibility.

Or AOC, or Waters, or ...

They didn't. What they did envision is the House of Representatives doing their job which they didn't. When Ginsburg became unable to do here job and she refused to step down she should have been removed from that position. The House was controlled by the dems and as usual they didn't perform their jobs. Had the repubs had control of the house I don't have much faith they would have done their jobs either.

Ginsburg wanted the skank to replace her position and when that bet didn't pan out she let her TDS take over her common sense.

The Constitution works as written, follow it and things work out.

Yep, life expectancy was quite a bit shorter in those days.

Repealing the 17th would be good too!