Posted on 03/29/2015 6:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?
Good plan. Out country would be so much better off if Scalia and Thomas had been forced to retire during Clinton or Obama’s term /sarc.
I think so.
I’d like to see Congress rein them in by declaring certain subjects off limits to the Court.
“...That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?...”
-
NO, it would not require a Constitutional Convention.
But it would require a congressional amendment or an Article V amendment.
Just a Constitutional Amendment.
I am completely against this.
Until one party or the other, stops exporting jobs everywhere else but America, we are greatly served by a supreme court which doesn’t change much at all.
GOP there is one important issue, and NEITHER PARTY is paying attention to it yet.
Bring back jobs to America.
Then we can talk about changing (or not changing) our supreme court.
But for the time being, leave them entirely alone please.
Just my humble opinion.
This is a great idea.
Grandfather in all the lobs and apply it to any decent appointee coming in with the republican president
Typical self destructing GOP
The USSC’s shenanigans are a great cause of our job flight, mostly due to empowering the expansion of centralized government. Yes, this is an issue that covers such a thing.
I’m not sure I agree with that.
Both parties are completely sold out, on American jobs.
Democrats are sold out. Republicans are sold out.
Everyone is sold out. Don’t change the Supreme Court.
What we need, is to change the two parties, back to working for America.
First.
No, Article V of States.
Judicial activism is a big cause of our jobs going away. The USSC does need some change, since they have been a big vehicle in liberal politicians pushing liberal anti-job policies.
You are kidding or is this comical?
Give Congress term limits first, then we’ll talk.
The Constitution mentions “good behavior” but not life or any other tenure. Certainly by today’s standards term limits on the SC could be legislative. SC term limits have been seriously proposed a number of times.
Long overdue. Same on consecutive terms for senators
Yes, imagine 8-year terms.
Rehnquist, appointed 1972 by Nixon replaced by Carter in 1980.
Scalia, appointed 1986 by Reagan replaced by Clinton in 1994.
Kennedy, appointed 1988 by Reagan, replaced by Clinton in 1996.
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, appointed 1993 by Clinton would’ve reappointed by Dubya in 2001 because of a Dem Senate.
Breyer, appointed in 1994, would’ve been reappointed by Dubya in 2002 again because of a Dem Senate.
Clarence Thomas, appointed 1991 by Bush Sr. replaced by Clinton in 1999 (and it would’ve been by then-Deputy Atty Gen. Eric Holder, for whom Dubya would’ve had to reappoint in 2007 for fear of being labeled a racist and with a Dem Congress).
Chief Justice Roberts, appointed 2005 by Dubya, would’ve been replaced by Zero in 2013.
Alito, appointed 2006 by Dubya, replaced by Zero in 2014.
A good chance we’d have had an all 9 Democrat SCOTUS today with that notion.
Way to go Huckster, the stupid keeps right on rollin’.
The life long term was created so that when they expired, they would not be indebted to anyone for a job.
Term limits are really not a great idea when the emperor is an @$$hole.
How about the judges run for office as the local judges in my neck of the woods do?
I don’t care for appointees. People appointed to an office are usually friends, relatives,; cronies or political donors. They may not be qualified for the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.