According to the Progressive Left, the Supreme Court is a sacrosanct, unimpeachable lever for social justice in America… until it starts making Conservative rulings, at which point it becomes a small-town school board in desperate need of a flushing. Scott Ott brings us the Pros and Cons.
Listen here on Soundcloud:
If one takes the most base nature of mankind into consideration, there is no logic at all in imposing “term limits” on anything. From my direction, if one knows they’ll only be there for one term, what things can they get accomplished during that term than would if there was a longer span of time available to get those designs accomplished. No. “Term limits” are the worst thing we can impose upon those given the power of life or death over the populace at large. Things that would get pushed through would be infinitely more socially damaging than anything the… Read more »
Let’s not forget… if Biden had his way, he wouldn’t say “18 years from today”. It would be 18 years since the Justice assumed the seat. Which means John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito are out. Three fresh radical leftists put in their places and there will never be a Conservative verdict ever again. No need to add seats when you can just empty some.
interpret the 2nd Amendment? The Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE there is NO interpret. “Traffic infractions are not a crime. ” People V. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639. Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Supreme Court, Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74 “Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him… Read more »
RE: Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.e. The actual point of that case is completely irrelevant to a discussion about the right of people to ignore the law. There is no such right, if there were and people could simply refuse to consent to laws there would be no law at all. It’s about someone who left the colonies to avoid the revolutionary war, and then came back after the war was over. Then he wanted to sue someone — who tries to claim that since he left the US he has no right to sue. The… Read more »
Sure. Why not? As long as there are term limits for every other politician in the country.
That is the wrong question, ant the one “they” want to you to ask. The real and only question is, Should a president who is elected to obey and protect the Constitution take it upon himself to change that Constitution? Or even to ‘study’ what can be done to change the Constitution. The answer must be “No”. Stay focused on the objective, not the activities. When “they” say they want to “fundamentally change America”, they mean exactly that. These aren’t tweaks, upgrades, updates or improvements, or modernizations. Their goal is the destruction of America. Appointing Supreme Court justices is not… Read more »
Patriot Academy is a REALLY easy, painless, even fun way to learn about our Constitution! It’s also free! patriotacademy.com
Ain’t broke. Don’t fix it. Only the Dems want to fix everything that they think will be good for their party. Party. Not citizens.
Besides, I think this is one of those…Look over here!.. things that people will obsess about so that the Dems can do other nefarious things, that people can obsess about. Never ends.
Term limits for congress first.
However, there is no reason to set terms for SCOTUS.
Just enforce a retirement age 75-ish and that with poor health would insure some additional churn.
All of the downside that Scott pointed out would absolutely happen.
I know some Ds still mad that RBG didn’t retire with Obama as POTUS. She along with many others presumed that H would win and wanted her seat replaced by H selection.
Scott, FWIW, well done on a very thoughtful presentation. To use the common vernacular, this business of “reforming” SCOTUS requires one hell of a lot of “unpacking.” Biden has no intention of getting in the weeds on this, which is why he appointed a commission to study it. I haven’t yet read their report, but I will. In the meantime, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that the sole reason Biden went down this path is sour grapes for his base of proglodytes. This is one idea, however, that he can’t win by buying the votes needed to carry it… Read more »
I have a simpler, bipartisan solution building on Steve’s idea – any Justice has to retire at the age of 80.
The same would apply to the Legislative and Executive branches as well.
Better yet, if we pursue this line of thought, an honestly-evaluated competency test is required, because age is not the best metric to identify one’s ability to perform the job. I’ve known 90 year old folks who are more mentally competent than many 70 year old people.
The competency test is the only thing I’d require. You can have 90+ year old people as sharp as can be, and 30 year old people who have dementia and have no idea what is going on. Age dementia is not the only kind there is.
So we are on the same page here.