It is funny when the left doesn't get their way they always try to change the rules.
They want term limits for Justices, but not for lifers like McConnell, Pelosi, and Schumer.
The Left wants to change the Supreme Court
- Thread starter WVUSerg
- Start date
It is funny when the left doesn't get their way they always try to change the rules.
They want term limits for Justices, but not for lifers like McConnell, Pelosi, and Schumer.
Why in the world do you think the left doesn’t want term limits for McConnell, Pelosi and Schumer?
Because the left
Because the left doesn’t actually give two F’s about corruption? Boot out every single one
Your conflation of liberalism and leftism aside, I think you’d find most liberals and leftists are in favor of term limits. I think any political slice you want to cut, you’re going to find most people in favor of term limits.
Let's just call spade a spade. The Left is being petulant because they don't have the Supreme Court majority after having it for so long. The end.
exactly. It is why they hate school choice, private schools, charter schools, etc. They like to warp young mush brains from K-12.
They hate competition.
You know I mean term limits for the House and Senate.
They don't want term limits so they can stay in power and get rich doing it.
Yep. When you lose control, try to move the goal posts. FDR did the same when he kept having trouble getting new deal packages through and had to court pack.
Mitch McConnell showed frequently he was ok coming In second place. If senate republicans election wing had supported Herschel Walker he would have made it but McConnell pulled support.
Sadly, the Supreme Court shouldn't be about "sides"...They should be 100% obeying the Constitution and upholding it. The two-party system is killing our country, to a point that we can't even have a neutral court.
Anyone who wants to limit our freedoms, should be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court. If you think there are more than two genders, you should be disqualified, because you disagree with basic and scientific facts. If you think we should be limited on what firearms we can own, you should be disqualified, because our Constitution says nothing about limitations. If you think there are certain things we can't say (save the "yelling fire in a theatre" comments, you know what the hell I mean) you should be disqualified. Just because you think it's offensive, doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to say it. It's a constitutional right. Sticks and stones come to mind. If you're "woke" you should be disqualified. If you think people coming here and have came here illegally should be handed legal status, you should be disqualified. If you are a Socialist, Communist or Marxist, you should be disqualified.
In fact, any of those should disqualify you from serving any office. If you don't like America and its Constitution, GTFO. Period.
If Term Limits were to be voted on in the House, it would NOT pass. Even if it did, it wouldn't pass the Senate. Few politicians would be okay with that and it doesn't matter what side of the isle they are on. It should be voted on by The People. Then and only then, would it pass.
Aka a constitutional amendment, which also has to be voted on by Congress. Why should Supreme Court justices have limits when the senators who approve them don’t.
If I were given free reign to modify SCOTUS, here is what I would do:
12 year terms. Why 12? It's twice as long as a term in Senate, and that's reason enough. The Founding Fathers did not expect that people would live to be 80-90 and still on the court. It's insane.
13 Justices, with only 9 hearing a case. Assignments to each case are done by random number generator. This will be more entertaining than knowing how a case will be decided before they even hear it.
A Code of Ethics with enforcement and hefty fines. No more billionaires buying you shit. No more book deals while on the bench.
And this one if for you, Moscow Mitch: no more blocking votes on nominees. That's not how it was intended to be.
12 year terms. Why 12? It's twice as long as a term in Senate, and that's reason enough. The Founding Fathers did not expect that people would live to be 80-90 and still on the court. It's insane.
13 Justices, with only 9 hearing a case. Assignments to each case are done by random number generator. This will be more entertaining than knowing how a case will be decided before they even hear it.
A Code of Ethics with enforcement and hefty fines. No more billionaires buying you shit. No more book deals while on the bench.
And this one if for you, Moscow Mitch: no more blocking votes on nominees. That's not how it was intended to be.
Yes, I knew exactly what you meant and most voters on the left are very for them, including for the house and senate. Most voters on the right are too.
The 13 justices w/ nine hearing is an intriguing idea.
The root of the problem is the left was happy to watch the court gobble up power and subrogate itself where Congress should’ve been doing actual work, and now the shoe is on the other foot and we’re mad. So I get the right saying “oh so NOW you want to fix it?” Reality is it should’ve been fixed long ago and the next best time is now.
Then we just have to make Congress functional somehow and maybe we’ll be able to have a functional government again.
Then we just have to make Congress functional somehow and maybe we’ll be able to have a functional government again.
You are not going to want to hear this but, a lot of this shit we see now is because of Barack Obama. He divided this country more that any one person in my lifetime. He pitted blacks against whites. Cops against people and people against cops. Then, the division grew and grew. You know why Donald Trump came about? Barack Obama. Blame him.
I watch Peter Zeihan and I disagree with him on a lot(war on Ukraine and some other stuff regarding China) and agree with him some. I thought he would be a big Obama fan and he says Obama is one of the least effective Presidents ever. I agree. He said he basically did nothing and the things he could fix he didn't because of his ego. I also think he likes the division somehow.
When Obama got elected, of course I didn't vote for him but, I thought one good he might do was bring the races together more. I really did. But, it got worse.
Now we have all this division and I think he started a lot of it and fueled it.
What is it that you think Obama did to exacerbate race issues that wasn’t just a reaction other people had to his existence?
He didn't try to bring people together. He seemed to always being stirring it up. He also is one of those that want to erase our past as well. If you read about him he thinks of the USA as a colonial power. He stirred up race relationships between blacks and police. He just did not seem to do a lot of unifying in my opinion.
He really didn't do much on the war on terror, one way or another. He basically ignored it. His foreign policy was weak or he basically it. ignored it.
Zeihan says Obama became very isolated and was one of those guys that didn't want to hear from anybody else other than himself and he would basically state he was the smartest guy in the room always(even on subjects he would not be well versed in, cocky, arrogant).
I mean some of those are fair criticisms of Obama in general and some don’t even go far enough, but I still struggle to see how you think he pitted people against each other more than Trump.
Should have been fixed? What was wrong with it? The court has always swung with the times. Society shapes people, those people grow up and a few become SC justices.
Just think what the court will look like in 30-40 years when all these batshit crazies graduating Harvard law today will be the nominees. I guess we’ll have to take it to 100 justices each with a six month term then. Just run it like jury duty maybe.
Or maybe we just stick to tradition and just not cry when we have a period where we don’t get our way on every ruling.
The Constitution is the Constitution.
The left is working to destroy it, the right doesn't give a shit and The People are ultimately hurt.
We've been the richest, most prosperous, most generous, most free and the most sought after country to live in for centuries....and the left wants to change it? 🤔
Dumbasses.
I find it hilarious when people say they things like “the founding fathers didn’t intend it this way”. They don’t intend a lifetime appointment although that’s what they said. They don’t intend citizens to own “those kind “ of weapons. Although “shall not be infringed “ is pretty damn clear.
Exactly. It's very clear. It's mostly the left, the progressive left, that wants to transform America. They hate America, its values and freedoms. Why? Because they can't control us.
The government wasn't meant to control us.
Any, ANY elected official thinking otherwise, should be removed from office. Their job is to enforce the Constitution, our freedoms and protect our borders. Why do they want the opposite?
They HATE America, that's why.
It took a much larger role than it should have. SCOTUS never should’ve been dealing with abortion in the first place. Congress needs to pass a law. It never should’ve had the ability to hand down something like Citizens United.
I don’t honestly think that if you and I went one by one down a list of what we think are bad SCOTUS decisions we would disagree on many. I dislike the end result of many of them, but that’s a problem I have with the legislative branch it doing their job.
The issue I think most people have now is the naked politicization, where whichever party gets more people on the bench starts tearing out all precedence. It gets treated like a Super Congress that can rewrite (er, sorry, reinterpret) laws at will. My issue with it is deeper. The legislative branch has gotten lazy and fully dysfunctional (this is not recent) and depends on the justices from its side to fix things for it, which the court is more than happy to do.
If you're going to consider the constitution a "leaving breathing document", then this is what you get. You're ok with activist attorneys and activist courts at lower levels I would imagine, but wonder why the supreme court is called on to settle some of these issues?
Okay, we have the same view then. The court doesn’t need fixed, Congress needs fixed. Given that, I don’t see how the left should support changing the court to suit the f’ed up Congress.
The perceived conservative nature of the current court is a direct result of the democrats throwing away tradition, checks and balances in the name of expediency. You used to have to get bipartisan support to get a nominee confirmed. The dems didn’t want to have to play close to the middle so they changed the rules and it came back to bite them. Their solution? Change even more rules.
Oh, and term limits sound great until you get on a run of the other side controlling congress or the presidency when vacancies come up.
Not to mention, each party will "fix" the highest court each time they're in power.
It would be a slippery slope this country doesn't need.
What we need is voters for country and not for teams. Then we fix everything.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Georgia Southern's backup leaves team and enters portal
- Latest: TwolfHerdfan