LOL

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2019 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure John Marshall was in his 80's when he died (stopped serving). He served for about 35 years I believe. There is precedent for what's going on today since our country's beginning. And Tang mentioned something about justice hearings being politically charged. This has also been the case as long as our country has been around. One of the most famous cases in our country's history, Marbury v Madison, was exactly this. It was about politically charged confirmation hearings essentially. Adams pushed through a bunch of appointees within has last days in office before Jefferson, who was of a different party, took office. It obviously goes much deeper than that, but the point is that what we are seeing now is what people were seeing in 1800. We act like it's something new.

Pretty sure the average life-span pre-1800 was like 40 years.

That's somewhat misleading because of the percentage of deaths before becoming an adult. If u made it to adulthood, it was closer to 60 instead of 40.

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 10:27:00 AM (view original):
We both know that that isn't what is really happening.

What's not happening?

Debating the law and not politics.

With whom? The legislature or the courts?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2019 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure John Marshall was in his 80's when he died (stopped serving). He served for about 35 years I believe. There is precedent for what's going on today since our country's beginning. And Tang mentioned something about justice hearings being politically charged. This has also been the case as long as our country has been around. One of the most famous cases in our country's history, Marbury v Madison, was exactly this. It was about politically charged confirmation hearings essentially. Adams pushed through a bunch of appointees within has last days in office before Jefferson, who was of a different party, took office. It obviously goes much deeper than that, but the point is that what we are seeing now is what people were seeing in 1800. We act like it's something new.

Pretty sure the average life-span pre-1800 was like 40 years.

You're missing the point. CCCP was saying that the founders didn't intend on people serving until they were 80 because life spans were shorter. Yes, life spans were shorter that is a fact. But we still had justices that lived that long and served that long. They knew it was a strong possibility and still didn't intend for them to have term limits.

The founders certainly understood age and the concept of limits. They applied an age limit. You have to be 35 years of AGE to serve as POTUS.
Quite obviously they valued experience and wanted to PREVENT someone to young to have garnered enough WISDOM and experience to be POTUS.

Thinking about it like that, perhaps we should prevent the impetuous and unwise youth from making our National decisions.
Just think of how good the Clinton Presidency would have been IF he was old enough to have been shed of that libido of his.
Balanced Budget even!
Prosperity.
Fleetwood Mac in the WH.
Good times!
lol

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 7:22:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Supreme court term limits. Should we have them?

I'd b fine with term limits for Supreme Court Justices, Senators, House of Reps, etc.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 10:27:00 AM (view original):
We both know that that isn't what is really happening.

What's not happening?

Debating the law and not politics.

With whom? The legislature or the courts?

Cmon. It's political.

Yes, it always has been political. Term limits aren't going to fix that. This is why we need more originalists on the courts. This is what makes Gorsuch such a great pick.

The Constitution doesn't specify the number of seats on the SCOTUS, I hope President Biden adds a couple to make up for MERRICK GARLAND

Assuming a democrat wins in 2020, I'm not sure that would be a smart play politically. But what McConnell did was wrong. What republicans don't understand when they pull these stunts is that they are setting a precedent. They do these things and then whine when the democrats turn around and do the same thing back to them.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it always has been political. Term limits aren't going to fix that. This is why we need more originalists on the courts. This is what makes Gorsuch such a great pick.

To be clear, Tang, I am not vehemently opposed to term limits on Supreme court justices. When didn't have term limits on the president until 1953 (I believe) and that has worked out fine. I'm just not sure if term limits would address your concerns that you have with the SCOTUS.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Assuming a democrat wins in 2020, I'm not sure that would be a smart play politically. But what McConnell did was wrong. What republicans don't understand when they pull these stunts is that they are setting a precedent. They do these things and then whine when the democrats turn around and do the same thing back to them.

Seriously? Are you that delusional, or just that blind? Democrats do the EXACT same sheit that Republicans do and vice-versa. BOTH Parties are filled with tons of hypocrites. We'd all be better off if EVERYONE stopped trying to pretend one Party behaves better than the other.

I think you forgot who you are talking to. I'm pretty sure you won't ever find me defending the democrat party. I'm one of the more conservative people on here.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it always has been political. Term limits aren't going to fix that. This is why we need more originalists on the courts. This is what makes Gorsuch such a great pick.

Yes they will. The reason it is so politicized now is because of the fact that justices could serve for 40 years.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it always has been political. Term limits aren't going to fix that. This is why we need more originalists on the courts. This is what makes Gorsuch such a great pick.

To be clear, Tang, I am not vehemently opposed to term limits on Supreme court justices. When didn't have term limits on the president until 1953 (I believe) and that has worked out fine. I'm just not sure if term limits would address your concerns that you have with the SCOTUS.

Wouldn't solve everything, but I haven't seen many disadvantages.