Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 5:01:00 PM (view original):
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.

And your post was saying roughly the same stuff that all3's was, albeit in a less abrasive manner.

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:35:00 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.

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

Let me show you the flaw in your thinking. Our congress people have term limits. They are politicized. Our president has term limits. It was politicized before term limits were added and it has been politicized since. These positions are politicized because they are occupied by humans. As we've discussed, we all (CCCP excluded) have biases. Term limits will not prevent the politicization.

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:37:00 PM (view original):

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.

That's the thing. I don't see what it solves. You have talked about the politicization of the position, but once you think about it you will realize that term limits won't help this. We have talked about changing times. It's our legislators jobs to adapt laws to the times. It's not our justices job to rewrite laws to fit the times. They are required to interpret the law using its original intent to the best of their abilities. I'm just not seeing the advantages. I'm open to changing my mind. I'm just not convinced yet by anything anyone has said.

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 5:01:00 PM (view original):
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.

And your post was saying roughly the same stuff that all3's was, albeit in a less abrasive manner.

Yeah, i'm going to call the republicans out when they do stupid stuff just as quick as I will call the democrats out. It may be a little easier for me as I don't pledge any allegiance to either party, but either way they will both get my wrath when I feel they screw up.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:35:00 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.

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

Let me show you the flaw in your thinking. Our congress people have term limits. They are politicized. Our president has term limits. It was politicized before term limits were added and it has been politicized since. These positions are politicized because they are occupied by humans. As we've discussed, we all (CCCP excluded) have biases. Term limits will not prevent the politicization.

Congresspeople aren't nominated by a President. A better comparison is cabinet positions, which are politicized far less because they don't serve on their positions for life.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/14/2019 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Simple, NO! We shouldn't think we moderns are smart enough to go willy nilly "tampering" with The Constitution. When we have we cause unintended consequences far worse than a justice hanging on to their "seat" even though they might be long in the tooth.

There's history to show this. Enjoy a beer lately?

The Founders KNEW what they were doing.
It ain't their fault that our modern elected so called "leaders" FAIL the test of leadership by compromising their authority AND their choices to sit on the SCOTUS!

When President's play party politics instead of actually leading then this is what we get.
Justices for life who shouldn't have been appointed in the 1st GD place!

I'm not saying anything about anything except:


They knew what they were doing but they never envisioned a lot of what is going on now. It's a whole different world than it was at that time. Those bastards couldn't even drink water without risking getting the *****.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Based on what? The constitution nor the Federalist papers mention age for justices. It's entirely possible that the cognition of most 80 year olds is stronger today than 65 year olds in 1780. I don't care if a person is 100 if he/she is sharp enough to think critically. Ruth Bader Ginsberg hasn't shown any signs of decline in her mental state from what I can tell. Her health is fading for sure, but her mind still appears sharp.

People thought Reagan was sharp also...until it came out years later he was suffering from Alzheimers and probably not really in his best mind.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/14/2019 2:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

Everyone. Amen sir.

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.

Yup, that's why they are trying to pass the new legislation limiting the president's powers to call national emergencies.....after this one. LOL.


Pelosi said **** you.

Posted by The Taint on 3/14/2019 10:33:00 PM (view original):

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.

Yup, that's why they are trying to pass the new legislation limiting the president's powers to call national emergencies.....after this one. LOL.


Pelosi said **** you.

I hate this kind of politics really. *** for tat...but in this case, she's right. I'm really hoping that congressional Republicans, when faced with a veto vote, decide that this is absolutely constitutional and they need to zap it. I don't want to see any EO'ers that go around any of the other branches of government. Don't care who the president is. There's enough power in those that don't already.

Posted by all3 on 3/14/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

What Democrat has ever made sure there were no proceedings around the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice?

What Democrat has ever issued an EO that goes around Congress after they already said no on financial matters?



I'll be waiting.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:35:00 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.

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

Let me show you the flaw in your thinking. Our congress people have term limits. They are politicized. Our president has term limits. It was politicized before term limits were added and it has been politicized since. These positions are politicized because they are occupied by humans. As we've discussed, we all (CCCP excluded) have biases. Term limits will not prevent the politicization.

There are no term limits for anyone in congress. It was ruled unconstitutional in the mid 90's to impose term limits upon representatives to congress.

Posted by The Taint on 3/14/2019 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 5:35:00 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.

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

Let me show you the flaw in your thinking. Our congress people have term limits. They are politicized. Our president has term limits. It was politicized before term limits were added and it has been politicized since. These positions are politicized because they are occupied by humans. As we've discussed, we all (CCCP excluded) have biases. Term limits will not prevent the politicization.

There are no term limits for anyone in congress. It was ruled unconstitutional in the mid 90's to impose term limits upon representatives to congress.

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking. The sad part is you were the first one to correct me this many hours later.

i'm good with SC judges not having term limits

the remedy if you don't like what they're doing is win both houses and the presidency and shrink or expand the number of justices