deez preparing a bill limiting scotus

[old2soon]

       Term to 18 years. So what-change the rules cuz the rules make ya P Od? While yer limiting S C O T U
S limit yerselves while yer about it. RIDE SAFE.

[Patrick]

That doesn't seem to make much sense. Why not limit the number of members or set an age limit as to when retirement is required.

Seems to me that 9 members what is needed and probably about 80 years of age is a good retirement number. But I'm probably wrong about that.

[0leman]

Limit the Judges to 18 years??   How about term limits on the House?   Senate?? 

[Rams]

Limit the Judges to 18 years??   How about term limits on the House?   Senate??  

While I don't know that such limitations on the House or Senate would make a lot of difference, I'm all for instituting such laws.    I would consider that to be sharing the wealth.  
Doing so would make the ranks of Lobbyists swell.

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

Limit the Judges to 18 years??   How about term limits on the House?   Senate??  

While I don't know that such limitations on the House or Senate would make a lot of difference, I'm all for instituting such laws.    I would consider that to be sharing the wealth.  
Doing so would make the ranks of Lobbyists swell.

Rams

With our current rules and laws, I think there will never be a shortage of lobbyists. I think an 18 year limit on Judges, Senators, and Representatives makes a lot of sense. My hopes for such are pretty slim. Even with a huge groundswell of public support, it would still be very difficult getting it passed.

[Bret SD]

Limit the Judges to 18 years??   How about term limits on the House?   Senate?? 

While I don't know that such limitations on the House or Senate would make a lot of difference, I'm all for instituting such laws.    I would consider that to be sharing the wealth.   
Doing so would make the ranks of Lobbyists swell.

Rams

With our current rules and laws, I think there will never be a shortage of lobbyists. I think an 18 year limit on Judges, Senators, and Representatives makes a lot of sense. My hopes for such are pretty slim. Even with a huge groundswell of public support, it would still be very difficult getting it passed.

Doesn't a change like the one proposed require a Convention of States?

I'm not well versed on the process.. if that's the case then the point is moot and it's all political hot air AFAIK.

[scooperhsd]

I think a great majority of the people would be in favor of term limits for Congress. But as stated by Meathead, I don't hold much hope of it ever happening.

[scooperhsd]

There is nothing in the Constitution about terms limits. Passing an Amendment would be extremely difficult because BOTH parties would be against it. There are 4 ways to amend the Constitution, only 2 have been tried, and the majority get passed by 1 of them.

here's a quick tutorial you can read -

https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-process-of-amending-the-constitution.html

[Rams]

I think a great majority of the people would be in favor of term limits for Congress. But as stated by Meathead, I don't hold much hope of it ever happening.

Very few would vote themselves out of such a powerful and well paying job.   If such a thing were to come to fruition, I believe it would require a Constitutional Amendment and, I feel quite confident, those currently in power would grandfather themselves and make it only applicable to freshmen/women coming into office.

Federal jurists get appointed to a life time guaranteed job (unless impeached).   That doesn't mean they couldn't be restricted from serving in SCOTUS and be required to step down to a lower court if such a amendment were to be passed.   Those more knowledgeable should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Rams

[mrtlc]

I think there should be a board of review. ANY one in public service that is found to be anti American or anti constitution would be fired! Just like you or I would be if we weren't doing our job. I also think the salaries should be no more than 1.5 X the average income of the district  they represent.  Keep the good ones and get rid of the ones that want to undermine the country.

[JimC]

I think there should be a board of review. ANY one in public service that is found to be anti American or anti constitution would be fired! Just like you or I would be if we weren't doing our job. I also think the salaries should be no more than 1.5 X the average income of the district  they represent.  Keep the good ones and get rid of the ones that want to undermine the country.

 

[Jess from VA]

I'm all in favor of term limits for legislators.  

But I still like lifetime federal appointments (on good behavior.  It's not like they can't get fired).

Of course in theory (and you hope in practice), judges should not be political and politics should not sway any decision.  

Good judges are hard to find.  Once found, they don't generally go bad (or corrupt) like legislators.  While it's apparently not hard at all to become wealthy as a federal legislator and hardly get asked any questions about it at all, if a judge suddenly gets wealthy they ask questions.    

And they often get better with age and experience, (and really good law clerks).  You hope the courts exist to bring stability, blind justice, reason and good judgment to the nation (unlike the other branches of government).  Maturity, experience, and a lifetime of service (unrelated to having to get elected) is the best way to achieve these things.  Our founders had it right (again).

Term limits for judges proposed by the Ds is simply a (fairly typical) shotgun approach..... if we keep getting younger judges on the bench, sooner or later they'll see the constitution (and all our goofy ideas) OUR way. (The long game)

However, I would not oppose some rule allowing for special inquiry into geriatricly disabled judges, either by mind or body (like sleeping during counsel arguments), being politely retired (even against their will).  So long as that process isn't politicized.  The mere fact such an inquiry was possible would probably influence some judges to voluntarily retire (rather than undergoing the embarrassment of an inquiry).  The current lifetime appointment on good behavior rule (misconduct) really doesn't fit the too-old-to-serve effectively situation.  All judges (and courts) have caseloads, and they all need to pull their own weight, like anyone else drawing public money.  There are plenty of funny stories about old judges going back forever (including SCOTUS judges sleeping during arguments).

But it's also true that some of the best decisions ever written came from old men. 

[carolinarider09]

I'm all in favor of term limits for legislators.  

But I still like lifetime federal appointments (on good behavior.  It's not like they can't get fired).

Of course in theory (and you hope in practice), judges should not be political and politics should not sway any decision.  

Good judges are hard to find.  Once found, they don't generally go bad (or corrupt) like legislators.  While it's apparently not hard at all to become wealthy as a federal legislator and hardly get asked any questions about it at all, if a judge suddenly gets wealthy they ask questions.    

And they often get better with age and experience, (and really good law clerks).  You hope the courts exist to bring stability, blind justice, reason and good judgment to the nation (unlike the other branches of government).  Maturity, experience, and a lifetime of service (unrelated to having to get elected) is the best way to achieve these things.  Our founders had it right (again).

Term limits for judges proposed by the Ds is simply a (fairly typical) shotgun approach..... if we keep getting younger judges on the bench, sooner or later they'll see the constitution (and all our goofy ideas) OUR way. (The long game)

However, I would not oppose some rule allowing for special inquiry into geriatricly disabled judges, either by mind or body (like sleeping during counsel arguments), being politely retired (even against their will).  So long as that process isn't politicized.  The mere fact such an inquiry was possible would probably influence some judges to voluntarily retire (rather than undergoing the embarrassment of an inquiry).  The current lifetime appointment on good behavior rule (misconduct) really doesn't fit the too-old-to-serve effectively situation.  All judges (and courts) have caseloads, and they all need to pull their own weight, like anyone else drawing public money.  There are plenty of funny stories about old judges going back forever (including SCOTUS judges sleeping during arguments).

But it's also true that some of the best decisions ever written came from old men. 

I agree with what Jess said. 

A convention of states will be needed to set term limits for members of congress.  Two terms for senators, 6 terms (Maybe 4) for representatives.  In both cases is a 12 year contract.

The entire notion behind having us elect senators and representatives was that we were to hold them accountable and that they would, when they retired or were voted out of office, they would have to live under the same laws that they wrote, helped enact.

That last part is what is and has been missing. 

Once the question has been determined, the convention of states called and activated, the next question will be, what will happen to the current members of congress.  Will they, immediately, become ineligible for re-election if they have served beyond the limits established?  Will they be exempt?  Will they get to serve under the new requirements? 

If they are exempt, then it will be a long time before things change and families might just take over (does that sound for of like the House of Lords) sort of like the Kennedy's. 

If they are not exempt, will current members get to serve until they reach the established limits?  If so, nothing will change for another long period. 

If they are not exempt and those that meet the limitations will not be eligible for reelection, imagine what that will look like with what, maybe 80% of the member's of congress newbies. 

As I said I agree with Jess, leave the courts as they are.  The basic idea is that they don't have to worry about their next job and maybe in not having to worry they won't be interested in making decisions that would be of benefit to them. 

[scooperhsd]

What's wrong with 80% of Congress being freshmen ? It had to be that way when we first stood up our government under the current Constitution. I see it as an opportunity to bring in fresh blood, while the oldies (like the current Leadership of both Houses) would be OUT OF THERE.

So far as the current members - no exemptions for current members - out at the end of their current term (if not immediately). Since the PEOPLE are writing this, and not Congress - we can do this.

I too agree with Jess on the handling of the Judiciary. It's the one branch that is actually working as intended.

[Jess from VA]

Another angle on the 18 year limit for Judges.

Down the road, if congressional term limits could ever be imposed, they'd pray that they get 18 years too      (and fat chance of that). 

But I think it's the younger judges over time will result in more liberals theory (and they are probably right).

[old2soon]

         WHEN Exactly did serving the fed gubmint become a retirement-guaranteed retirement-for any and all involved? Some in service approaching 50 years? Make their pay merit based-We The People-will determine if the individual has merit. And should Any member of gubmint end up with more than they've earned immediate investigation as to the How the heck did That happen? I believe the Military service maxes at 30 and out. But Because term limits make Sense it will Never fly.   RIDE SAFE.

[carolinarider09]

Quote:

What's wrong with 80% of Congress being freshmen ? It had to be that way when we first stood up our government under the current Constitution. I see it as an opportunity to bring in fresh blood, while the oldies (like the current Leadership of both Houses) would be OUT OF THERE.

I agree with the sentiment expressed but.....  We we first stood up the government under the current Constitution, I think those who were elected to fill the newly opened seats were supporters of that government, involved in its formation and patriots. 

Not so much today. 

However, having said that, I have reconsidered and think there is/might be significant shock value in having so much new blood in the federal government.  The down side is how much bureaucracy and red tape exists in the current methods.  How many of the unelected professionals might actually run things in Washington.

But, it needs to happen.

[OnaWingandaPrayer]

After an 80% turnover all those newbies could not run the place any worse than the crew in there now.

[scooperhsd]

After an 80% turnover all those newbies could not run the place any worse than the crew in there now.

My sentiments exactly

[carolinarider09]

The website

https://conventionofstates.com