SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

[@DCGoldPants]

A few notes. If the Dems take the Senate and WH. I want to see them up the SCOTUS to 13. Not 11. Also, I want to see them drop in term limits of.... say 16-18 years for that job. Anybody who has been service less than that # can serve out the rest of their "term". Anybody over... the most Senior sitting Justice gets 12 months. The next one gets 24 months and so on.

 

Then raise the number of Federal Judges who now are on term limits that are the same. 

 

Just curb stomp what McConnell and Graham pulled. Nobody should get a lifetime appointment for a taxpayer funded job ever again.

[Larry]

You do realize judicial term limits is a constitutional amendment, right?  

[@DCGoldPants]

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

You do realize judicial term limits is a constitutional amendment, right?  

 

I know there has been a debate if that's the case or not.

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

I know there has been a debate if that's the case or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Lifetime appointment to the federal bench is constitutional.  Setting duration limit on how long you can serve on a particular court such as SCOTUS is legislative for future appointees.  Whether such legislation can apply to sitting justices without constitutional amendment is an open question.

[Fergasun]

It's probably a conflict of interest for any Federal judge to rule on that, right?  

[@DCGoldPants]

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Lifetime appointment to the federal bench is constitutional.  Setting duration limit on how long you can serve on a particular court such as SCOTUS is legislative for future appointees.  Whether such legislation can apply to sitting justices without constitutional amendment is an open question.

 

I'd try it. 

[Simmsy]

Actually, from I was explained to me earlier on a different article (I'll have to look at it when I have more time), the constitution doesn't actually say lifetime appointments. Apparently, its just been interpreted that way. I'm a nobody who knows nothing, so take that with a grain of salt.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

Wonder if he'll be wearing a mask....

[visionary]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Thanks Hawley, appreciate them ammo 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Every single R in the Senate:  "I'm cool with that."  

[visionary]

 

[skinsmarydu]

3 hours ago, visionary said:

Wonder if he'll be wearing a mask....

Meh, he won't need it to complete his Halloween costume of "Conservative Justice".

[@DCGoldPants]

4 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Making yourself look like a sucker is an interesting move. 

[Mooka]

6 hours ago, Simmsy said:

Actually, from I was explained to me earlier on a different article (I'll have to look at it when I have more time), the constitution doesn't actually say lifetime appointments. Apparently, its just been interpreted that way. I'm a nobody who knows nothing, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_1/

 

Article III, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior.¹ This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.² The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.³ While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.⁴

 

 

Good Behaviour does sound a bit loose or ambiguous. 

 

Who exactly would rule on something like that.... The Supreme Court? 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Mooka]

What a joke. 

 

8 days from the election.

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by visionary