Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
The problem is that the leftists would win, and the four who have generally defended the Constitution (well, the three, since Roberts is completely a flake) would already have been out of a job.
Activist judges need to be publically ridiculed, mocked, and embarrassed daily for their irresponsibly unconstitutional decisions.
Judges are extremely sensitive to public chastisement. We should be exploiting that to the fullest.
Who can do it better than Mark Levin? Mark, how ‘bout it?
I vote for every two years. Since they seem to want to behave like Congressmen(women), we should treat them as such!
And the corollary law should be that they need to produce more decisions, and by decisions, one’s that actually resolve a given issue, not just “pick at it,” like a festering wound. Example: The Second Amendment. They are the laziest bunch in government. Either “publish or perish!”
Personally, I don’t think this is a good time to be talking about an Article V Convention. It falls squarely into the “be careful of what you wish for” category.
I'd like to see a law where we citizens could sue pols for breach of promise when they backstab us. Then they wouldn't get to keep the money and freebies they acquire for selling us out.
Sorry Ted but the solution is to televise each and every moment the SC is in session, no need for constitutional amendments
... doing the job that Congress won’t do?
There’s a process for handling judges who ignore the constitution, it is called impeachment. Start one, Cruz.
I’m sorry. What happened to the anti-cruz retards?
WilliamIII, your momma’s callin’.
Actually, he's suggesting the quickest way to get Scalia, Alito, & Thomas removed from the court. Can you imagine the shear volume of money that would be spent to get those three off the bench? Every leftist would go broke to get those three fired.
Wake up Mr. Cruz! A better idea would be to go upstream and prevent bad-apple justices from being confirmed to the Supreme Court in the first place.
More specifically, the federal government has been able to get away with stealing state powers for many generations because state lawmakers unthinkingly ratified the 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up their constitutional authority to be a part of the justice approval process.
After all, all that pro-unconstitutionally big federal government justices have to do is to decide contests of power between federal and state governments in the federal government’s favor.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and pro-unconstitutionally big federal government activist justices along with it.
And why not repeal 17A and also implement periodic Supreme Court judicial retention elections as Mr. Cruz has proposed.
I vote no.
Like my vote on anything ever mattered.
I was silly and thought it made a difference.
Ted Cruz Ping! This is not a good idea, for the simple reason that greater democratization, like the 17th Amendment, tends to foul up the system and make officials *less* accountable.
The 17th turned the US senate into 100 “free agents”, who no longer have to do what their states want them to, as long as they can skunk voters every six years and frighten off their opponents.
So a better way would be to make federal judges accountable to congress at intervals. Not through impeachment, but through voting on their retention. If 2/3rds of the senate voted to not retain them as judges, then a simple majority of the House could remove them from the bench.
Notice this is just the opposite of impeachment, which is done with a simple majority in the House and confirmed by 2/3rds of the senate.
Hanging is more expedient; and more permanent.
No, this is as bad of an idea as 17A was, and the lawless will not follow the law anyway.
Without 17A, we would not have the monstrosity we do in all 3 branches of government.
The constitution already allows for the Congress to impeach a judge. Since they won’t do it they want to pass it on to us.
Ted Cruz’s proposed amendment needs to go further. There should be no more lifetime appointments to the Federal bench and they should term limited as to how long they can serve.
I say a President can appoint someone to be a Federal judge for one ten year term. At the end of that term, they will have to either leave the bench or can be re-appointed to a second five year term by another President and reconfirmed by the Senate to either continue on as a circuit judge or promoted to an appellate court judge. When their combined 15 years are up, they must leave the bench.
For Supreme Court nominations, if confirmed by the the Senate, that justice can serve no longer than one twelve year term, either as an associate or Chief Justice. At the end of the twelve years, they must leave the court. At the six year mark, the Senate would have an option to remove the justice for whatever reason, but it would take a 3/5 vote of Senators present (60 out of 100 if all Senators present)
Incumbents would not be excempted from this amendment and if they have 15 or more years service on the bench, they would have l to leave office. Same for Supreme Court Judges. No more lifetime appointments.
I would leave it to the Senate to arrange an orderly system to replace term expired judges/justices with the longest serving leaving first.