https://apple.news/AvqrN8mCOSYmAs4KKHhS4XA

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3

Quote:

---

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court's legitimacy.

The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

"It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Partly due to rising life expectancies, justices serve increasingly long tenures, on average now more than 25 years.

Term limits for high court justices have for years had support from a number of legal scholars on both the right and the left. Several polls in recent years have also shown large majorities of the American public support term limits.

The bill - the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act - is the first to try to set Supreme Court term limits by statute, according to Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial transparency group whose campaign for high court term limits has been gaining attention.

---

I can agree with this but let's wrap term limits of Congress critters in with it.

Lololololol

I bet the next time they get control, they run this up the pole, right?

Agreed on both. Tired of the dinosaurs in DC.

The good thing about 18 year limits is you'll stagger 1 justice every 2 years, so in theory each president gets between 2 and 4 justices no matter what. Seems agreeably balanced.

Add limits on Congress, then pass and sign as lame duck.

I agree that Congress needs to go first. Lead by example you swamp creatures.

Right

And the next time they get power they'll stack the court with Lib activists and then declare no more changes to SCOTUS can ever happen

So when do we get term limits for the leaches in the house and senate? Not holding my breath.

As others have said. Limit Congress first.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Add limits on Congress, then pass and sign as lame duck.

---

This. Double down and if they actually go for it, it's a win/win!

Limit 2 noms per term?

Add term limits to all offices.

And isn't the term set in the constitution? Wouldn't the change take an amendment?
Can the Supreme Court strike down this legislation if it came before the court?

A bill? So effing what. The Constitution says this:

Quote:

---

Article III

Section 1

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.

---

I read that to mean that lifetime appointments are in the Constitution which would mean that a bill is meaningless. Am I seeing that wrong?

A president serving two terms would get to turn over half the bench during their tenure.

Given what partisan hacks the Dems have now, that would be a disaster.

Oh, and howabout we start with term limits for Congress first?

Just like the Electoral College, the Dems always want to change the rules when it doesn't work out in their favor.

No thanks, I'll go with the judicial system the way the founding fathers set it up.

This is completely wrong headed. The reason for the lifetime appointments is precisely that it means they are above the fray of politics, or should be.

The real problem is that Congress has been derelict in their duties and they know they can just blame whatever failings they have to get things done on the courts. That's the reason for the big fight now. Too many people in Congress view the courts as a means to enact their agendas. They don't want to be on record making hard decisions on nuanced legislation because they know that it will make re-election difficult. Packing the courts is really the only thing that gets McConnell reelected. Absent that, he's actually pretty unpopular in Kentucky.

So instead they say oh well we can't do anything because the courts say XYZ or they say oh we're going to sue to have the courts decide XYZ. Notice that Congress isn't passing bills to solve these problems. They don't want to.

LOYAL AG said:

---

A bill? So effing what. The Constitution says this:

Quote:

---

Article III

Section 1

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.

---

I read that to mean that lifetime appointments are in the Constitution which would mean that a bill is meaningless. Am I seeing that wrong?

---

You, sir, are correct.

Law of unintended consequences - the Constitution would become even less relevant than it is today.

It will only speed up the pendulum period.

"This is the law today, but wait 4 to 6 years, and it will change again"

Cry more dems

And even greater danger are the unelected bureaucrats. Something needs to be done there as well

Interesting.

One might conclude that the Dems have finally figured out which way the wind is blowing. How could that be with the polls saying otherwise?

ttu_85 said:

---

And even greater danger are the unelected bureaucrats. Something needs to be done there as well

---

This is my biggest concern about term limits for Congress. The greater churn there almost certainly serves to increase the importance of the bureaucrats.

This morning Beck actually told a story about interviewing W in the White House. He said W told him it didn't matter who the President is that the advisors were all the same and thus the direction of the country was determined and the President's opinions weren't relevant. He told it in the context of why they hate Trump so much because he's come along and tried to change the course of the nation and get it off of the globalist "soak the rich Americans" path it's been on since the end of the Cold War.

The faster we turn over SCOTUS, the faster our rights erode away.

This would be far from the first time that one party controlled a solid majority on the supreme court. FDR didn't do it any favors. Sorry you can't destroy the country that much faster commies.

Moxley said:

---

The reason for the lifetime appointments is precisely that it means they are above the fray of politics, or should be.

---

if Congressional limits were added to the deal I wouldn't have a problem with this

First you can get rid of much of the federal bureaucracy by getting rid of anything that's not deemed a federal role in the Constitution. I don't know how much of a reduction that might represent but I feel like it's pretty significant. I'm thinking over 50% but admittedly that's just a SWAG and there are those here with far better informed opinions than I.

After that you go an a rationalization spree. Look at every federal position and rationalize if it truly adds value or not. That probably doesn't cut nearly as deep but still pretty significant is my guess.

Maybe some of these people move on to bureaucratic or regulatory type roles at the State or local level. I'm ok with that , you have to attack the federal bureaucracy first in a Republic and let the States figure out their business.

Age limits - Not Term Limits.

Ditto with Congress.

And Repeal the 17th!

halfastros81 said:

---

First you can get rid of much of the federal bureaucracy by getting rid of anything that's not deemed a federal role in the Constitution. I don't know how much of a reduction that might represent but I feel like it's pretty significant. I'm thinking over 50% but admittedly that's just a SWAG and there are those here with far better informed opinions than I.

After that you go an a rationalization spree. Look at every federal position and rationalize if it truly adds value or not. That probably doesn't cut nearly as deep but still pretty significant is my guess.

Maybe some of these people move on to bureaucratic or regulatory type roles at the State or local level. I'm ok with that , you have to attack the federal bureaucracy first in a Republic and let the States figure out their business.

---

I'm completely with you I just don't think it'll happen. I'd love to be wrong.

halfastros81 said:

---

First you can get rid of much of the federal bureaucracy by getting rid of anything that's not deemed a federal role in the Constitution. I don't know how much of a reduction that might represent but I feel like it's pretty significant. I'm thinking over 50% but admittedly that's just a SWAG and there are those here with far better informed opinions than I.

After that you go an a rationalization spree. Look at every federal position and rationalize if it truly adds value or not. That probably doesn't cut nearly as deep but still pretty significant is my guess.

Maybe some of these people move on to bureaucratic or regulatory type roles at the State or local level. I'm ok with that , you have to attack the federal bureaucracy first in a Republic and let the States figure out their business.

---

Correct. And limit ALL offices, elected or not like that. If you think someone's skills are so important, allow return after a siting out period of a decade. You would break up inertias that way.

A better Bill would be to go back to 60 votes needed to confirm and make sure there is no way to change it. Supreme Court appointments should have to have some degree of bipartisanship.

The anti-American democrats should have no say in how the government is run. They're a threat to national security.

aggiehawg said:

---

---

I immediately thought of this. I know I can't be the only one.