Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away

#277
#277
hog88 said:
A 10 year term for all Federal Judges makes more sense.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We don't need to have essentially every year this type of crap bogging down the senate. Furthermore, the lengthy terms make the federal judges beyond the reach of those that appointed them and makes them less susceptible to the whims of the day. In other words, you have a much more stable body of law.

If there were to be term limits, it would make more sense to have 18 year terms for the reasons described above. Have the appointments on SCOTUS expire every other year. Therefore each term of a presidency a president will make 2 appointments. The issue comes in when you have 3 consecutive terms of one party, that party will have 6 justices of the 9. This issue is even more pronounced with a 10 year term.

I prefer the lifetime appointments that put these men and women beyond the reach of those that appointed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#278
#278
hog88 said:
A 10 year term for all Federal Judges makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Agree, but we still need balance in the court. A SCOTUS lopsided for even one year could be quite damaging.

ETA - Clear does make a solid argument for lengthy appointments.
 
Last edited:
#279
#279
ClearwaterVol said:
I disagree. We don't need to have essentially every year this type of crap bogging down the senate. Furthermore, the lengthy terms make the federal judges beyond the reach of those that appointed them and makes them less susceptible to the whims of the day. In other words, you have a much more stable body of law.

If there were to be term limits, it would make more sense to have 18 year terms for the reasons described above. Have the appointments on SCOTUS expire every other year. Therefore each term of a presidency a president will make 2 appointments. The issue comes in when you have 3 consecutive terms of one party, that party will have 6 justices of the 9. This issue is even more pronounced with a 10 year term.

I prefer the lifetime appointments that put these men and women beyond the reach of those that appointed them.
Click to expand...

I could go with 12 year terms but lifetime appointments leave a judge wholly unaccountable and it's virtually impossible to remove them.

I also don't see how a judge with a 10 year term would be "in reach" of the one who appointed him. When I say a 10 year term that's 10 years and out, no reappointment to the same bench.
 
#281
#281
ClearwaterVol said:
I disagree. We don't need to have essentially every year this type of crap bogging down the senate. Furthermore, the lengthy terms make the federal judges beyond the reach of those that appointed them and makes them less susceptible to the whims of the day. In other words, you have a much more stable body of law.

If there were to be term limits, it would make more sense to have 18 year terms for the reasons described above. Have the appointments on SCOTUS expire every other year. Therefore each term of a presidency a president will make 2 appointments. The issue comes in when you have 3 consecutive terms of one party, that party will have 6 justices of the 9. This issue is even more pronounced with a 10 year term.

I prefer the lifetime appointments that put these men and women beyond the reach of those that appointed them.
Click to expand...

That's why you start with term limits in Congress...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#284
#284
hog88 said:
I could go with 12 year terms but lifetime appointments leave a judge wholly unaccountable and it's virtually impossible to remove them.

I also don't see how a judge with a 10 year term would be "in reach" of the one who appointed him. When I say a 10 year term that's 10 years and out, no reappointment to the same bench.
Click to expand...

When there are more seats being handed out on a yearly basis there is more of an opportunity for quid pro quo. There is also the opportunity to influence specific upcoming decisions on a very regular basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#286
#286
Vol8188 said:
What does that fix?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it gets rid of lifetime politicians who aren't challenged in elections and simply get fat in DC. The intent of the framers was for people to perform a civic duty and serve the public in some capacity for a limited period of time and then return home to their true occupation. Plus we should, from an economic standpoint, get rid of the absurd pensions and benefits earned by congressmen in a very short period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#287
#287
ClearwaterVol said:
In my opinion, it gets rid of lifetime politicians who aren't challenged in elections and simply get fat in DC. The intent of the framers was for people to perform a civic duty and serve the public in some capacity for a limited period of time and then return home to their true occupation. Plus we should, from an economic standpoint, get rid of the absurd pensions and benefits earned by congressmen in a very short period of time.
Click to expand...

Originally congress was only supposed to be in session 3-4 months out of the year, it wasn't meant to be a full time job.
 
#288
#288
Here's my issue with term limits:

1. If the person is so bad then vote them out of office. It's like saying you believe income should be limited because you don't like rich people. If you don't like a politician, vote against them.

2. I truly believe there's a very limited number of people who have the integrity to make great politicians (Ron Paul for example). I think we can all agree that there's a lot more scumbags in politics (Cruz and Hillary for example) than decent people. If so, term limits would only lead to more scum in office.
 
#290
#290
Sandvol said:
Compromise is always an acquiescence to statism.
Click to expand...

latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#293
#293
ClearwaterVol said:
In my opinion, it gets rid of lifetime politicians who aren't challenged in elections and simply get fat in DC. The intent of the framers was for people to perform a civic duty and serve the public in some capacity for a limited period of time and then return home to their true occupation. Plus we should, from an economic standpoint, get rid of the absurd pensions and benefits earned by congressmen in a very short period of time.
Click to expand...

I almost passed out.
 
#298
#298
Sandvol said:
No but really why do all our compromises end up acceding to bigger government? Even the so called conservative compromises? Always.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Fiscal conservatism is a fringe movement in modern America.

The Democrats want increased spending for entitlements. The Republicans want increased spending for the military. "Compromise" gets us both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#299
#299
UTCVol said:
It's pretty simple. Fiscal conservatism is a fringe movement in modern America.

The Democrats want increased spending for entitlements. The Republicans want increased spending for the military. "Compromise" gets us both.
Click to expand...

Agree, the Founders made their first mistake when they ratified the Constitution.
 
#300
#300
UTCVol said:
It's pretty simple. Fiscal conservatism is a fringe movement in modern America.

The Democrats want increased spending for entitlements. The Republicans want increased spending for the military. "Compromise" gets us both.
Click to expand...

But, you do have to agree that Military is an explicit function of our government. Entitlements aren't.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top