[SoConPubbie]

Thus proving Ted’s a rabble rouser without a plan. For one thing you’d never get this through, for another on the off chance you did it would get overturned, and finally retention elections don’t actually work on the state level.

Complete and utter B.S. on your part.

Given your "rules" the founders, those fighting the British, that rag-tag band of farmers, shop-owners, etc. who banded together to fight for their freedom against the most powerful nation on earth at the time, should have given up because they'd never win.

Given your attitude, unless it was guaranteed to be successful at the start, you would have sat on the sidelines and refused to fight because you'd be too scared to fight for fear of losing.

[discostu]

I didn’t put forth any rules. I simply said what is. This won’t pass. And judicial retention:
http://216.36.221.170/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/905/aspin_905.pdf

historically runs between 75 and 80%, thus clearly showing it clearly doesn’t fix an out of control judiciary.

There’s nothing wrong with being against things that have a multi-decade proven track record of abject failure. It’s the attitude of ignoring previous results that’s dangerous. I’m not looking for guaranteed success, I’m looking to AVOID guaranteed failure. And an amendment that will NOT pass and will NOT accomplish anything if it somehow does pass is a guaranteed failure.