Jump to content
270soft Forum

Democrats Launch Bill for Supreme Court Term Limits


ThePotatoWalrus
 Share

Recommended Posts

www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/09/24/house-democrats-reportedly-prep-bill-to-limit-us-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years/amp/

Apparently the Democrats are trying to make 18 year Supreme Court justice terms. Seems very reactionary to me, and a bad idea. Any thoughts? And what is the significance of 18?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/09/24/house-democrats-reportedly-prep-bill-to-limit-us-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years/amp/

Apparently the Democrats are trying to make 18 year Supreme Court justice terms. Seems very reactionary to me, and a bad idea. Any thoughts? And what is the significance of 18?

What I think is MUCH MORE needed is to bar justices chosen for ideological bias or partisan patronage or spoils appointment. That is FAR more important to deal with to bring integrity to the Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/09/24/house-democrats-reportedly-prep-bill-to-limit-us-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years/amp/

Apparently the Democrats are trying to make 18 year Supreme Court justice terms. Seems very reactionary to me, and a bad idea. Any thoughts? And what is the significance of 18?

Should be shorter tbh. Only because your justices are chosen on Political Grounds, which is actually kinda weird. I agree with Patine on this issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Double plus ungood.

You're probably the most informed on the supreme court here than anyone. Do you know the significance of 18? Google says nothing. All I can think is it's the length of 3 Senate terms?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really understand what's going through Democratic leadership's head right now. Surely, Pelosi and Schumer know that you cannot impose term limits and change the lengths of Supreme Court Justice's tenures without a constitutional amendment. Besides, 18 is a very strange number. The average time served for a justice is roughly 16 years, and like @ThePotatoWalrus mentioned I can only see its significance as time for every senator to have been reelected from appointment to finishing the term. 

This isn't the kind of move that will rally support for changing term limits for SC Justices. This is the kind of move I'd expect to backfire on Democrats when undecided voters see them acting like children who didn't get what they wanted and are now throwing a tantrum. I guarantee this would have never been introduced had Clinton won and had appointed three justices. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I dont support it either, but it wouldnt have happened with Clinton because Dems didnt spend a year saying they wouldnt hold a court vote during an election year and then turn around 4 years later and do exactly that. Its not about appointing a certain number of justices. Its about the lying and cheating your way to SC seats.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of the Republicans actions for preventing the nomination of Garland. He was an incredibly talented pick with what should have been bipartisan support. However, what Democrats are proposing is blatantly unconstitutional. Would I support a bill in Congress that limited the presidents term to 4, two year terms? No! Because it's in the constitution what their terms are. I just don't see the logic in proposing something so blatantly unconstitutional that has no chance of passing, will likely turn public support against you, and ultimately have a negative net effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

However, what Democrats are proposing is blatantly unconstitutional. Would I support a bill in Congress that limited the presidents term to 4, two year terms? No! Because it's in the constitution what their terms are. 

The constitution does not, in fact, specify that Supreme Court justices have lifetime terms or the length (if any) of their terms at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...