Americans favor Supreme Court term limits....?
Jul 20, 2015 12:51:15 GMT -6
dirkgently, Glencairn, and 3 more like this
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 12:51:15 GMT -6
We live in interesting and disturbing times. The two words are equally true, and they both apply to this story in equal measure, in one bunny's humble view.
Here is what a recent poll found...
The paragraph preceeding it indicates the problem, and thank God for our Forefathers and their precient ability to anticipate tyranny. We'd already have it..without this little hitch to their step.
No... Not difficult. Impossible. As it damn well ought to be.....because they don't serve for life to corrupt them. Their terms are unlimited for a very good reason, and it lay at the core of what keeps this nation from swinging between Religious Right Theocracy and Marxist Left Dictatorship every 4-8 years.
Source
That last sentence. The whole thing. That is EVERYTHING for why we DO NOT have limited terms for the Supreme Court Justices. Their selection, appointment and confirmation is political to the core, because the men doing it are politicians trying to select the best lawyer to judge others. How do we expect that to go? It was clear, I believe, from the 18th century, that would be how picking them would go. Human nature.....and so...ANOTHER SIDE of human nature WAS ALSO figured into the plan.
Once a Supreme Court Justice IS seated, following Senate confirmation? They have *NO* Political allegiance to anyone, anywhere, ever again. There is NO reason, outside the strictly personal, for them to even follow political news. It will never change or impact their personal futures again. As it NEEDS to be. This...is the ONLY THING I still see to HAVE Faith in for this system.
Start of Mini Op-Ed:
Congress are bought and paid for pets...and if they don't arrive there that way, that become that way within 1-2 terms, almost without exception, among men and women serving continuous DECADES (TERM Limits they want??! How about CONGRESS FIRST.).
Bush showed us how a President can pretty well go to war with whoever they choose, because they choose, and Congress can..at best..bitch a little. Nothing more is likely to matter, because it didn't when the worst was thrown against Iraq as a war idea.
Obama has shown us how a President can pretty well run roughshod over the laws, make up regulation without legal precedent and effectively make their own without more said, and can disregard almost any orders from any other area of Government....separation of powers or State's rights be damned.
If we turn the court into a "responsive" thing...we have made it PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE. Responsive is POLITICAL...and there IS NO other way to put that, from within Washington D.C.. The members of the Court are either apolitical or they are political creatures, like every other slug in the District. How can there BE a middle to that???
Yeah... The nation hates Citizens United...but better than half of us still HAVE GUNS AT ALL because of Heller Vs. DC. Make *NO* mistake, in my view, because it HAD NOT BEEN established PRIOR to that Super Court ruling. We would NOT be seen as a proper Militia under the terms of the Document by this President...and we ALREADY WOULD BE fighting to keep them...had that Supreme Court not ruled the way it did on Heller. The liberals *HATE THEM* for it....as much as Fundamentalists *HATE* them for Roe v Wade.
Well..in a free nation...life's a bitch sometimes, and we all get a bite of the crap sammich once in awhile. As it should be, needs to be, and needs to stay...if we're to keep a nation as we've ever known it.
That's my two very strongly felt carrots into this debate.
(Not much room for wishy washy on this. It's the very core of our nation's founding and structure to work)
Here is what a recent poll found...
Support for the 10-year term limit proposed by the poll was bipartisan, with 66 percent saying they favored such a change while 17 percent supported life tenure.
The paragraph preceeding it indicates the problem, and thank God for our Forefathers and their precient ability to anticipate tyranny. We'd already have it..without this little hitch to their step.
Limiting terms would be difficult, requiring an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shows no signs of taking up the idea, though Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz has suggested the possibility of justices being voted out of office.
No... Not difficult. Impossible. As it damn well ought to be.....because they don't serve for life to corrupt them. Their terms are unlimited for a very good reason, and it lay at the core of what keeps this nation from swinging between Religious Right Theocracy and Marxist Left Dictatorship every 4-8 years.
The two big rulings in June were widely welcomed by liberals. Nevertheless, 66 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents said they favored the 10-year term limit idea, according to the poll.
That last sentence. The whole thing. That is EVERYTHING for why we DO NOT have limited terms for the Supreme Court Justices. Their selection, appointment and confirmation is political to the core, because the men doing it are politicians trying to select the best lawyer to judge others. How do we expect that to go? It was clear, I believe, from the 18th century, that would be how picking them would go. Human nature.....and so...ANOTHER SIDE of human nature WAS ALSO figured into the plan.
Once a Supreme Court Justice IS seated, following Senate confirmation? They have *NO* Political allegiance to anyone, anywhere, ever again. There is NO reason, outside the strictly personal, for them to even follow political news. It will never change or impact their personal futures again. As it NEEDS to be. This...is the ONLY THING I still see to HAVE Faith in for this system.
Start of Mini Op-Ed:
Congress are bought and paid for pets...and if they don't arrive there that way, that become that way within 1-2 terms, almost without exception, among men and women serving continuous DECADES (TERM Limits they want??! How about CONGRESS FIRST.).
Bush showed us how a President can pretty well go to war with whoever they choose, because they choose, and Congress can..at best..bitch a little. Nothing more is likely to matter, because it didn't when the worst was thrown against Iraq as a war idea.
Obama has shown us how a President can pretty well run roughshod over the laws, make up regulation without legal precedent and effectively make their own without more said, and can disregard almost any orders from any other area of Government....separation of powers or State's rights be damned.
If we turn the court into a "responsive" thing...we have made it PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE. Responsive is POLITICAL...and there IS NO other way to put that, from within Washington D.C.. The members of the Court are either apolitical or they are political creatures, like every other slug in the District. How can there BE a middle to that???
Yeah... The nation hates Citizens United...but better than half of us still HAVE GUNS AT ALL because of Heller Vs. DC. Make *NO* mistake, in my view, because it HAD NOT BEEN established PRIOR to that Super Court ruling. We would NOT be seen as a proper Militia under the terms of the Document by this President...and we ALREADY WOULD BE fighting to keep them...had that Supreme Court not ruled the way it did on Heller. The liberals *HATE THEM* for it....as much as Fundamentalists *HATE* them for Roe v Wade.
Well..in a free nation...life's a bitch sometimes, and we all get a bite of the crap sammich once in awhile. As it should be, needs to be, and needs to stay...if we're to keep a nation as we've ever known it.
That's my two very strongly felt carrots into this debate.
(Not much room for wishy washy on this. It's the very core of our nation's founding and structure to work)
