Of course this would require a constitutional amendment, but pretend for a minute this became law. The dems may get more than they bargain for, Harry Reid style.

If they did it happened for legislature, I'd go along with it.

It would be hilarious if they managed to pass this trash only for the conservative justices to take a **** all over it. I would love to see Thomas put congressional democrats in their place.

In case you needed more proof that no one in this country reads the Constitution.

United States Supreme Court vs. United States

That would be a fun case to watch!

US District Court Judges already have to take Senior status when they reach 65 (I think). I don't think term limits are necessary, but age limits are not a bad idea for Supreme Court Justices. Even if that limit is 75.

DogHouse95 said:

---

US District Court Judges already have to take Senior status when they reach 65 (I think). I don't think term limits are necessary, but age limits are not a bad idea for Supreme Court Justices. Even if that limit is 75.

---

And Hill members.

waitwhat? said:

---

Is there any explanation for how term limits for SCOTUS would change anything? Would a justice's ruling be different if they had to leave office early?

---

It's a double edged sword, but it keeps either "side" from filling the court for 40 and 50 years. Justices are supposed to be apolitical, but that system has been broken for decades, and no justice on the court now leaves their political or religious beliefs out of their rulings.

The idea of "for life" appointments of USSC justices is one of the few things I think the founders got wrong( although I don't think they envisioned the mess it has led to), but that goes right along with not addressing political bribery, and no term limits for the legislature or executive branches.

Every one of those on the list should in Nov be voted out of office; not one of them will be.

DogHouse95 said:

---

US District Court Judges already have to take Senior status when they reach 65 (I think). I don't think term limits are necessary, but age limits are not a bad idea for Supreme Court Justices. Even if that limit is 75.

---

this is not correct.

they may take senior status.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

The bill's sponsors reads like a "who's who" of ****ing idiots.

---

"Dem" is in the thread title. No list needed.

Chavista blueprint. Some people are naive and believe that certain political parties don't borrow tactics from other countries. The Dems have taken the Chavista playbook and are using it on many levels.

And for any Dem that thinks "The U.S. will never be like today's Venezuela" let it be a reminder that when Chavez took over and gradually started to espouse and implement Marxists ideals…a lot of those that went along with him would tell the opposition "We will never be like Cuba. We are too rich of a country. Chavez is just trying to combat racism and help the poor….unlike those who are against the Bolivarian Revolution."


Article from 2004:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/12/13/venezuela-chavez-allies-pack-supreme-court

I can hear the REEEEEING now as President DeSantis appoints all nine justices.

"Barrett renewed, Kagan you're fired."

The Dems can't seem to be able to decide if they want to pack or unpack.

Probably as follows:
"Republican Presidentially nominated SC justices can only serve to the end of that President's term."