Politics RBG hospitalized

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I think that was in reference to: If something happens to RBG during this election year. Meaning, McConnel used the election during the 2016 to not confirm the opened position.

I know what it was in reference too. He did that because Obsms was president and nominating liberal judges. McConnell was stalling in hopes a republican would win the White House and conservative judges could be nominated to be confirmed.

If something happened to RBG, you can bet Trump would immediately nominate someone and the senate would rush to confirm him/her.
 
I know what it was in reference too. He did that because Obsms was president and nominating liberal judges. McConnell was stalling in hopes a republican would win the White House and conservative judges could be nominated to be confirmed.

If something happened to RBG, you can bet Trump would immediately nominate someone and the senate would rush to confirm him/her.
I agree with this statement.
 
agree, but its always been try and get an advantage with justices regardless of parties. Thats why I would favor an amendment to keep it equal and put term limits on it.

I've been a proponent for political position terms limits for some time now...and yes, it should apply to the SC as well.
 
I've been a proponent for political position terms limits for some time now...and yes, it should apply to the SC as well.
Well, judges are not politicians. All Article III judges have lifetime terms. You need and want experience in the courts. It should not be a turnstyle. It's honestly hard to find good judges and to term the judges out is I think a bad idea. We have elections for Congress and Americans could vote out the incumbents every election, but they rarely do. So, as much as people say they want term limits, that doesn't really show in the ballot box.
 
Well, judges are not politicians. All Article III judges have lifetime terms. You need and want experience in the courts. It should not be a turnstyle. It's honestly hard to find good judges and to term the judges out is I think a bad idea. We have elections for Congress and Americans could vote out the incumbents every election, but they rarely do. So, as much as people say they want term limits, that doesn't really show in the ballot box.
Agreed, plus you don't want judges to rule based on keeping their jobs. Lifetime appointments are there to make sure the judges will rule on law and their convictions.
 
Agreed, plus you don't want judges to rule based on keeping their jobs. Lifetime appointments are there to make sure the judges will rule on law and their convictions.

I'm not arguing for it, but you could have, say, a single, non-renewable 10-year term. That would eliminate the issue you bring up.

barfo
 
I'm not arguing for it, but you could have, say, a single, non-renewable 10-year term. That would eliminate the issue you bring up.

barfo
So a presidential two term appointment basically? I mean that could be debated.

There have been some social changing rulings by very brave Justices, Roe vs Wade for example, that I would argue never possibly happening if a judge were on a term. Even one at 10 years.
 
So a presidential two term appointment basically? I mean that could be debated.

There have been some social changing rulings by very brave Justices, Roe vs Wade for example, that I would argue never possibly happening if a judge were on a term. Even one at 10 years.

Why do you think that wouldn't happen if they were on a non-renewable term? Since they could never be re-appointed, they wouldn't have to worry about the optics or popularity.
 
Why do you think that wouldn't happen if they were on a non-renewable term? Since they could never be re-appointed, they wouldn't have to worry about the optics or popularity.
Because the Presidents at that time would be more radical with their choices. Meaning, the Administration that possibly was against Roe vs Wade can appoint a judge to reverse that ruling. Basically, each administration gets to replace an entire Supreme Court during his or her’s office.
 
Because the Presidents at that time would be more radical with their choices. Meaning, the Administration that possibly was against Roe vs Wade can appoint a judge to reverse that ruling. Basically, each administration gets to replace an entire Supreme Court during his or her’s office.

That's an excellent point.
 
Because the Presidents at that time would be more radical with their choices. Meaning, the Administration that possibly was against Roe vs Wade can appoint a judge to reverse that ruling. Basically, each administration gets to replace an entire Supreme Court during his or her’s office.

Ok, so make the term 15 years. Then an 8-year president only gets to appoint about half the court. Or 20 years if that's still too much.

barfo
 
I'm not arguing for it, but you could have, say, a single, non-renewable 10-year term. That would eliminate the issue you bring up.

barfo

That sounds like a rational number to me.
 
I don't eat no stinkin' blueberry pie. I'm American and I eat apple pie.
Tell you what, bake both and see which one I gorge on. Just have plenty of ice cold milk on hand.

Blueberry cobbler and ice cold milk, baby. That's heaven for me!
 
I can go for blackberry cobbler if the right apples for the apple pie are unavailable. In a pinch I can go for cherries Jubilee with flaming brandy on top.

Cherries Jubilee! Now you are talking, buddy.
 
So much talk about pies and cobbler making me hungry.
Me? I'm having meatloaf with mashed potatoes and meatloaf gravy and string beans. No desert which probably means I did something wrong today. Can't figure out what it was. It wasn't our anniversary or her birthday ao what was it?
 
Me? I'm having meatloaf with mashed potatoes and meatloaf gravy and string beans. No desert which probably means I did something wrong today. Can't figure out what it was. It wasn't our anniversary or her birthday ao what was it?

Mmmm Meatloaf. I envy you, Lanny.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top