Cruz and Romney Propose Term Limits for Congress

[Will Hunting]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Thoughts? I personally support the idea.

[spurraider21]

it's pretty hilarious that none of the sponsors are people serving beyond the proposed term limits :lol

i think term limits are a good idea, but i think they should be longer than the ones proposed. other than elections, how else could voters ever keep congressmen accountable?

[boutons_deux]

Term limits for SCOTUS, too.

Repugs will never allow that, having worked so hard and so long to pollute the entire Federal judiciary with political/religious-hacks-in-robes.

[CitizenDwayne]

Would be spectacular.

[Chucho]

Would be awesome. Not happening, but would be awesome. Maybe get more altruistic politicians now.

[Will Hunting]

it's pretty hilarious that none of the sponsors are people serving beyond the proposed term limits :lol

i think term limits are a good idea, but i think they should be longer than the ones proposed. other than elections, how else could voters ever keep congressmen accountable?
It seems like the politicians who have been there forever have the least amount of accountability. Pelosi, Schumer, Cocaine Mitch, etc.

[Will Hunting]

^Ill admit I mainly just wanted an excuse to drop “Cocaine Mitch”

[Trainwreck2100]

2 6 year and 3 2 year, that don't seem right to me

[KenMcCoy]

I'm a huge supporter of congressional term limits. Our congress was structured so people wanting to fix/change things would: figure out what laws need to be changed, get elected by convincing other people that those laws need to be changed, go to congress and change those laws, and then go home. Without term limits they just stay there and go with whatever PAC or special interest groups want.

[BD24]

I’m on board with this.

[boutons_deux]

Churning Congress people in/out of office won't fix the background problem that both party establishments essentially vet and support like-minded candidates.

[Spurminator]

It's not that I wouldn't be okay with this, but term limits can already be imposed on members of Congress by the voters. Judicial appointments, which are not voted upon, are currently for life and I think we need to reexamine that.

[Spurminator]

Term limits as a requirement assumes that voters can not be trusted to hold ineffective or self-serving long term congressmen accountable at the booth.

[ElNono]

If you don’t fix campaign financing, term limits mean nothing (which doesn’t mean I don’t support it, but I feel it would be largely ineffectual)

[Spurtacular]

Great idea; I'm a little surprised that Rubio and Cruz want it though. I wonder what there game is.

[Spurtacular]

Term limits as a requirement assumes that voters can not be trusted to hold ineffective or self-serving long term congressmen accountable at the booth.

They can't be "trusted" in that respect, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Term limits as a requirement assumes that voters can not be trusted to hold ineffective or self-serving long term congressmen accountable at the booth.

American democracy is LONG dead, politicians do whatever BigDonor pays for, ignoring the preferences of voters.

And of course the deeply rigged, abused, archaic Constitution is a shit job, biasing so-called "democracy" in favor of land (rural states) rather than population (urban states), so we have an impregnable rule by minority.

[baseline bum]

If you don’t fix campaign financing, term limits mean nothing (which doesn’t mean I don’t support it, but I feel it would be largely ineffectual)

this

[Spurtacular]

Term limits for SCOTUS absolutely, and elections for SCOTUS, but they’ll never go for that.

The president could replace a Supreme Court judge any time he wants now, bruh. Trump respecting the unwritten rule right now. It'll be a Democrat fapper who eventually doesn't though, tbh.

[AaronY]

Age limits would be better tbh

[AaronY]

Actually I'm rooting for Biden in 2020 nvm
Lol

[spurraider21]

The president could replace a Supreme Court judge any time he wants now, bruh. Trump respecting the unwritten rule right now. It'll be a Democrat fapper who eventually doesn't though, tbh.
:lmao no

[ElNono]

The SCOTUS is a different ballgame, and I’m not sure how I feel about that one. Would have to give it some thought. Ultimately they don’t make law and are largely deferential to Congress, so it’s not really the same situation.

[spurraider21]

supreme court elections would be a disaster. you'd just be politicizing it even more than it already is, and that's a bad bad idea. i do think term limits would work though, somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years

[Will Hunting]

supreme court elections would be a disaster. you'd just be politicizing it even more than it already is, and that's a bad bad idea. i do think term limits would work though, somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years
Agreed, the judicial branch is the one branch of government that still has some semblance of integrity because it’s not subject to PAC money and low information voters.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao no

Look it up, dickhead.

[spurraider21]

Look it up, dickhead.
:lmao "the president could replace a supreme court judge any time he wants" :lmao

[Will Hunting]

Is this going to be another circular argument where Derp doesn’t cite a claim he’s making and just parrots “Go find it yourself if you care so much!!!” To anyone who questions him?

[Spurminator]

American democracy is LONG dead, politicians do whatever BigDonor pays for, ignoring the preferences of voters.

And of course the deeply rigged, abused, archaic Constitution is a shit job, biasing so-called "democracy" in favor of land (rural states) rather than population (urban states), so have an impregnable rule by minority.

Okay, but how do you feel about term limits?

[Pavlov]

The president could replace a Supreme Court judge any time he wants now, bruh.:lmao bruh

[spurraider21]

Is this going to be another circular argument where Derp doesn’t cite a claim he’s making and just parrots “Go find it yourself if you care so much!!!” To anyone who questions him?
nah, there's no argument. it's a lifetime appointment only subject to resignation/retirement and impeachment. the president plays no role in any of that.

[Will Hunting]

nah, there's no argument. it's a lifetime appointment only subject to resignation/retirement and impeachment. the president plays no role in any of that.
:lol I’m aware of how SCOTUS works, my point is how retarded it is to make a claim and then ask the person challenging it to go find support for it.

[boutons_deux]

Ultimately they don’t make law

:lol

[Spurminator]

They can't be "trusted" in that respect, tbh.

I'm not a fan of changing laws over the ignorance of the electorate.

I might like my 30-term congressman and feel he's the best option to represent me. And he might be.

Campaign finance and more transparency are better routes to the same desired end.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao "the president could replace a supreme court judge any time he wants" :lmao

You didn't look it up....

:rollin

[Spurtacular]

:lmao bruh

Sperm shielding for Lite.

:rollin

[Spurtacular]

I'm not a fan of changing laws over the ignorance of the electorate.

I might like my 30-term congressman and feel he's the best option to represent me. And he might be.

Campaign finance and more transparency are better routes to the same desired end.

If you're saying that someone in close to a million people can't be found or would step up, then you're saying you don't trust the electorate, anyways.

This has nothing to do with campaign finance; this appears to be the lefty talking point as a distraction. ElNono did the same thing.

[spurraider21]

You didn't look it up....

:rollin
I did. Turns out you were wrong.

:lmao "the president could replace a supreme court judge any time he wants" :lmao

[Spurtacular]

I did. Turns out you were wrong.

:lmao "the president could replace a supreme court judge any time he wants" :lmao

You didn't. Scalia was asked this point blank by a reporter.

[spurraider21]

You didn't. Scalia was asked this point blank by a reporter.
maybe you should look it up

[Spurtacular]

maybe you should look it up

I have. There is no Constitutional standard or law that ensures lifetime appointments. You haven't looked it up, or you would've posted your shit already.

[Chris]

Appears to have bipartisan support...


https://twitter.com/TheDemCoalition/status/1081292144768417794

[spurraider21]

I have. There is no Constitutional standard or law that ensures lifetime appointments. You haven't looked it up, or you would've posted your shit already.
The US constitution does it for me.

It establishes 2 year terms for US Representatives.
It establishes 6 year terms for Senators.
It establishes 4 year terms for the President. It also establishes the two-term limit for Presidents.

For Supreme Court Justices, it says they shall hold their office through good behaviour. That's it. No term length. No term limit. The President cannot unilaterally decide what constitutes "good behavior." That is why you would have to impeach a justice to remove them from office.

It's also argued for by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:


If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

You claimed Scalia confirmed your position when asked point blank by a reporter. Step up and share a link. We all know you won't, because you're making shit up.

[Spurtacular]

The US constitution does it for me.

It establishes 2 year terms for US Representatives.
It establishes 6 year terms for Senators.
It establishes 4 year terms for the President. It also establishes the two-term limit for Presidents.

For Supreme Court Justices, it says they shall hold their office through good behaviour. That's it. No term length. No term limit. The President cannot unilaterally decide what constitutes "good behavior." That is why you would have to impeach a justice to remove them from office.

It's also argued for by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:



You claimed Scalia confirmed your position when asked point blank by a reporter. Step up and share a link. We all know you won't, because you're making shit up.

Quoting the Federalist is not an argument. I think at one point Hamilton argued for a lifetime appointment for the executive ffs; that pissed a lot of people off b/c they had just fought to get rid of monarchy.

And :lol at your good behavior bull shit, which you obviously didn't put verbatim for a reason (or list the article/section/clause). Now, here's what the Constitution actually says:



He (president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

[spurraider21]

Quoting the Federalist is not an argument. I think at one point Hamilton argued for a lifetime appointment for the executive ffs; that pissed a lot of people off b/c they had just fought to get rid of monarchy.

And :lol at your good behavior bull shit, which you obviously didn't put verbatim for a reason (or list the article/section/clause). Now, here's what the Constitution actually says:



Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
yes. the president can nominate supreme court justices pursuant to article 2 section 2 clause 2. it says nothing about replacing a sitting judge. we also know that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.

show where the constitution talks about replacing sitting judges. and please show where scalia said so when asked point blank by a reporter.

the only unwritten rule being followed right now is that we cap SCOTUS at 9 judges. technically, trump could nominate a justice tomorrow, and they'd be the 10th justice on the supreme court. and then he could nominate an 11th, and so on. but he has no power to replace any sitting justice.

[Spurtacular]

yes. the president can nominate supreme court justices pursuant to article 2 section 2 clause 2. it says nothing about replacing a sitting judge. we also know that judges shall hold their offices for during behavior.

show where the constitution talks about replacing sitting judges. and please show where scalia said so when asked point blank by a reporter.

the only unwritten rule being followed right now is that we cap SCOTUS at 9 judges. technically, trump could nominate a justice tomorrow, and they'd be the 10th justice on the supreme court. and then he could nominate an 11th, and so on. but he has no power to replace any sitting justice.

If a justice doesn't have a term in place, a president could simply nominate a new person for the position. Supreme Court justices don't have life terms despite the popular belief. Indeed, the Senate would have to also confirm the justice; hence why I say only the Dems would ever be that audacious.

[spurraider21]

If a justice doesn't have a term in place, a president could simply nominate a new person for the position. Supreme Court justices don't have life terms despite the popular belief. Indeed, the Senate would have to also confirm the justice; hence why I say only the Dems would ever be that audacious.
justices serve during good behavior. that's their term. trump can nominate to add a justice to the court. it wouldn't replace any sitting justice. it would just add a 10th. there is no authority by which trump could replace a judge. you said supreme court justices dont have life terms. i think that's sorta contradicted by every single supreme court justice who has ever sat on the bench. same goes for any federal judge on any level. district court, appellate court, or supreme court. there is no authority by which the president can replace any sitting federal judge.

i'm still waiting for the scalia quote

[Spurtacular]

justices serve during good behavior. that's their term. trump can nominate to add a justice to the court. it wouldn't replace any sitting justice. it would just add a 10th. there is no authority by which trump could replace a judge. you said supreme court justices dont have life terms. i think that's sorta contradicted by every single supreme court justice who has ever sat on the bench


Art 2, Sec 2, Clause 2 makes it clear that no life term is in place unless outright stated by law. Do you have a law to cite? I'm not buying your non-cited good behavior nonsense, which undoubtedly simply qualifies that justices need to maintain the dignity of the office.

[Spurtacular]

i'm still waiting for the scalia quote

Saw it on a TV program years back. Finding it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, tbh.

[spurraider21]

Art 2, Sec 2, Clause 2 makes it clear that no life term is in place unless outright stated by law.
no, it just says the president can nominate more justices. SCOTUS originally only had 6 members. and therefore required 4 votes to reach a decision..

congress has passed laws to increase/decrease the size of the court.

the jefferson administration added a 7th justice in 1807.
an 8th and 9th justice were added under the jackson adminstration in 1837
a 10th was added by lincoln in 1863

the court size eventually was reduced to 7 (law passed stating the next 3 justices to retire would not be replaced). but then in 1869 it bumped back up to 9.

FDR wanted to up the number to 15 so he could pack the court, congress didn't go along with it


Do you have a law to cite? I'm not buying your non-cited good behavior nonsense, which undoubtedly simply qualifies that justices need to maintain the dignity of the office.
it's directly from the US Constitution :lmao... article 3 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.

[spurraider21]

Saw it on a TV program years back.
:lol well that's reliable


Finding it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, tbh.
it would be like finding an imaginary needle in a haystack

[ElNono]

Art 2, Sec 2, Clause 2 makes it clear that no life term is in place unless outright stated by law. Do you have a law to cite? I'm not buying your non-cited good behavior nonsense, which undoubtedly simply qualifies that justices need to maintain the dignity of the office.

I have a law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

That determines the composition of the SCOTUS in its last iteration. Meaning, the president can only nominate when there’s a vacancy.

[ElNono]

In theory, and theory only, the POTUS could increment the size of of the SCOTUS composition, creating new vacancies, however, it would be quite the affront to separation of powers.

An alternative route would be for Congress to do that (like the attempt to expand it to 15, which failed)

[spurraider21]

I have a law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

That determines the composition of the SCOTUS in its last iteration. Meaning, the president can only nominate when there’s a vacancy.
you can go further back. that's been the case since the original judiciary act of 1789 (though you noted you were only referring to the last iteration)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

there have since been various judiciary acts changing the size of the supreme court, i posted those instances in my last post

i was mistaken when i referred to it as an unwritten rule to only nominate during a vacancy

[Spurtacular]

I have a law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

That determines the composition of the SCOTUS in its last iteration. Meaning, the president can only nominate when there’s a vacancy.

The law only determines the eight associate justice / chief justice model. It says nothing on guaranteeing life terms. And if anything, it just shits on Lite's idea that an eleventh judge could be appointed (short of overturning that law). The wording is too ambiguous to know if it also shits on his idea that a tenth judge good be appointed.

[Spurtacular]

no, it just says the president can nominate more justices. SCOTUS originally only had 6 members. and therefore required 4 votes to reach a decision..

congress has passed laws to increase/decrease the size of the court.

the jefferson administration added a 7th justice in 1807.
an 8th and 9th justice were added under the jackson adminstration in 1837
a 10th was added by lincoln in 1863

the court size eventually was reduced to 7 (law passed stating the next 3 justices to retire would not be replaced). but then in 1869 it bumped back up to 9.

FDR wanted to up the number to 15 so he could pack the court, congress didn't go along with it


it's directly from the US Constitution :lmao... article 3 section 1

The word "vacancy" is not attributed in the Constitution or law to prohibit the president from nominating a new judge. Nor are SC justices given life terms. The president's options are very solid when it comes to this. Again, I believe only Dems would ever be audacious enough to try this within say the next twenty years.

[ElNono]

The law only determines the eight associate justice / chief justice model. It says nothing on guaranteeing life terms. And if anything, it just shits on Lite's idea that an eleventh judge could be appointed (short of overturning that law). The wording is too ambiguous to know if it also shits on his idea that a tenth judge good be appointed.

The part of the Constitution that sets up the judicial clearly states the term of judgeships. ‘In good behavior’ has historically meant a life tenure. More pointedly, there’s no mechanism expressed on the Constitution by which the executive can fire a judge.

Article 1 makes explicit that impeachment of a judge is an exclusive attribute of the legislative branch.

[spurraider21]

The law only determines the eight associate justice / chief justice model. It says nothing on guaranteeing life terms. And if anything, it just shits on Lite's idea that an eleventh judge could be appointed (short of overturning that law). The wording is too ambiguous to know if it also shits on his idea that a tenth judge good be appointed.
i acknowledged that error in my last post. constitutionally speaking, there is no limit on SCOTUS size. but the constitution allows congress to pass laws organizing the judiciary, including SCOTUS size. that was an aside, regardless.

there is no authority by which the president can remove or replace a sitting justice. you still haven't provided any. all you've shown is that the president has the authority to nominate justices. which they do all the time. nobody else has the power to fill SCOTUS seats.

[ElNono]

The word "vacancy" is not attributed in the Constitution or law to prohibit the president from nominating a new judge. Nor are SC justices given life terms. The president's options are very solid when it comes to this. Again, I believe only Dems would ever be audacious enough to try this within say the next twenty years.


You’re missing this has already been tried, and the only way to do it that’s not a direct violation of separation of powers is through Congress. The last attempt failed.

[Spurtacular]

i acknowledged that error in my last post. constitutionally speaking, there is no limit on SCOTUS size. but the constitution allows congress to pass laws organizing the judiciary, including SCOTUS size. that was an aside, regardless.

there is no authority by which the president can remove or replace a sitting justice. you still haven't provided any. all you've shown is that the president has the authority to nominate justices. which they do all the time. nobody else has the power to fill SCOTUS seats.

Of course there is. In fact, the president is the only person with the authority to do nominations. You are essentially arguing that SCJ's have life appointments. They simply don't. We're not "stuck" with them (except we are in reality).

[ElNono]

Of course there is. In fact, the president is the only person with the authority to do nominations. You are essentially arguing that SCJ's have life appointments. They simply don't. We're not "stuck" with them (except we are in reality).

The president has no authority to remove a judge. Article 1 specifically grants that process to Congress through impeachment. The only minor tweak to the process is that the House can start the process with a simple majority vote.

[Spurtacular]

You’re missing this has already been tried, and the only way to do it that’s not a direct violation of separation of powers is through Congress. The last attempt failed.

As evidenced by you citing no details for this claim. :lol

[Spurtacular]

The president has no authority to remove a judge. Article 1 specifically grants that process to Congress through impeachment. The only minor tweak to the process is that the House can start the process with a simple majority vote.

You're using impeachment and removal as interchangeable terms; they're not.

[spurraider21]

Of course there is. In fact, the president is the only person with the authority to do nominations.
yes, the president can nominate justices. nobody else can. this is how it's always worked. but that doesn't come attached with the power to fire people that are currently sitting on the bench.


You are essentially arguing that SCJ's have life appointments.
of course i am. they do have life appointments, unless they're impeached. that's why article 3 of the constitution says the serve during good behavior.


They simply don't. We're not "stuck" with them (except we are in reality).
see above.

[ElNono]

As evidenced by you citing no details for this claim. :lol

Post #51 in this thread. I can gladly cite Impeachment proceedings and the number of judges impeached if you’re keen to know.

[ElNono]

You're using impeachment and removal as interchangeable terms; they're not.

Of course they are. Impeachment *is* the name of the process to remove a government official, including the POTUS.

[Spurtacular]

The part of the Constitution that sets up the judicial clearly states the term of judgeships. ‘In good behavior’ has historically meant a life tenure. More pointedly, there’s no mechanism expressed on the Constitution by which the executive can fire a judge.


We're not talking historically; we're talking legally. I get that the life seat custom has been observed.

[Spurtacular]

Of course they are. Impeachment *is* the name of the process to remove a government official, including the POTUS.

No. Impeachment is based upon criminal or treasonous behavior; and it applies to removal of fulfillment for all federal positions including in futurity. Removal is simply that; removal.

[ElNono]

We're not talking historically; we're talking legally. I get that the life seat custom has been observed.

We’re talking logically too. Look, if presidents could just switch justices at will, they wouldn’t have tried to change the number of judges 5 or so times. What would be he point to that?

It’s just like people bitching about the militia term in the 2nd amendment, the book was written long ago, but there’s plenty of judicial precedent on its interpretation

[spurraider21]

We’re talking logically too. Look, if presidents could just switch justices at will, they wouldn’t have tried to change the number of judges 5 or so times. What would be he point to that?

It’s just like people bitching about the militia term in the 2nd amendment, the book was written long ago, but there’s plenty of judicial precedent on its interpretation
if presidents could just fire justices at will, it would also destroy the checks and balances/separation of power as well.

the lifetime term of judicial branch appointees is also their main balance tbh

[ElNono]

No. Impeachment is based upon criminal or treasonous behavior; and it applies to removal of fulfillment for all federal positions including in futurity. Removal is simply that; removal.

Impeachable offenses. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Of course there needs to be a basis for removal. That’s exactly why the president also can’t be removed from office in a whim. It’s called separation of powers and checks and balances.

The POTUS can nominate judges that can only be confirmed by the Senate, and only Congress and themselves have the ability to remove them (Congress due to misbehavior, themselves due to death or retirement).

[ElNono]

Forgot to highlight ‘impeach and remove’... but you get the gist

[spurraider21]

can you imagine if obama took office and proceeded to instantly fire scalia/alito/roberts/thomas/kennedy :lmao

[ElNono]

can you imagine if obama took office and proceeded to instantly fire scalia/alito/roberts/thomas :lmao

Imagine if he replaced Scalia with Ocasio-Cortez

[ElNono]

I think Spurtacular (and maybe Trump) are thinking Monarchy... there’s the king then everyone else below. Here we have 3 co-equal branches of government.

[spurraider21]

Is this going to be another circular argument where Derp doesn’t cite a claim he’s making and just parrots “Go find it yourself if you care so much!!!” To anyone who questions him?
score:

you - 1
me - 0

[Spurtacular]

Is this going to be another circular argument where Derp doesn’t cite a claim he’s making and just parrots “Go find it yourself if you care so much!!!” To anyone who questions him?

I cited A 2, S2, C2 of Constitution that the president does nominations (confirmed by Senate), and that life terms are not guaranteed either directly or by current law. It's your fellow chumpettes doing the circles, bruh.

[Spurtacular]

We’re talking logically too. Look, if presidents could just switch justices at will, they wouldn’t have tried to change the number of judges 5 or so times. What would be he point to that?

It’s just like people bitching about the militia term in the 2nd amendment, the book was written long ago, but there’s plenty of judicial precedent on its interpretation

No, the argument is legally. Presidents have abode the custom of not nominating new judges without vacancies. That Congress has chosen to cap judges is their right via the Constitution.

[Spurtacular]

if presidents could just fire justices at will, it would also destroy the checks and balances/separation of power as well.

the lifetime term of judicial branch appointees is also their main balance tbh

No. The judiciary is still independent; and any nomination is still dependent upon the Senate. If you're saying that any ideological vent could dominate for such action, that's fine. But an ideological vent could dominate on the Supreme Court as well (this is a very well known fact of the matter). Thus your balance/separation of powers argument is very specious.

[Spurtacular]

Impeachable offenses. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Of course there needs to be a basis for removal. That’s exactly why the president also can’t be removed from office in a whim. It’s called separation of powers and checks and balances.

The POTUS can nominate judges that can only be confirmed by the Senate, and only Congress and themselves have the ability to remove them (Congress due to misbehavior, themselves due to death or retirement).


Forgot to highlight ‘impeach and remove’... but you get the gist

Bla, bla, bla....

It's already been explained to you how impeach and remove are not interchangeable terms. You can choose to be dense if that's what you want to do.

[ElNono]

No, the argument is legally. Presidents have abode the custom of not nominating new judges without vacancies. That Congress has chosen to cap judges is their right via the Constitution.

Legally, you quoted it yourself: “whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”. The law says the President can appoint 9 judges to the SCOTUS. He can’t remove judges, he can’t change how many judges, he can’t replace judges (replacement includes removal implicitly, as their term is for life).

[LaSíSí]

Bla, bla, bla....

It's already been explained to you how impeach and remove are not interchangeable terms. You can choose to be dense if that's what you want to do.

You didn't know that Trump impeached Sessions? :lol

[Spurtacular]

Legally, you quoted it yourself: “whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”. The law says the President can appoint 9 judges to the SCOTUS. He can’t remove judges, he can’t change how many judges, he can’t replace judges (replacement includes removal implicitly, as their term is for life).

He doesn't directly remove them; he nominates someone new and the Senate confirms him. Short of a legal term in place, this is absolutely allowed by the Constitution. In fact, that is exactly what the Constitution says the process is.

[ElNono]

Bla, bla, bla....

It's already been explained to you how impeach and remove are not interchangeable terms. You can choose to be dense if that's what you want to do.

Blah, blah, blah...

I already explained to you that impeachment is the process by which government officials are removed. Another quote:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction by a legislative vote, which judgment entails removal from office.

[LaSíSí]

He doesn't directly remove them; he nominates someone new and the Senate confirms him. Short of a legal term in place, this is absolutely allowed by the Constitution. In fact, that is exactly what the Constitution says the process is.

:cry But cos no president has exercised this Constitutional option, somehow justices are guaranteed life terms even though the law says no such thing. Don't you know this? :cry

[Spurtacular]

Blah, blah, blah...

I already explained to you that impeachment is the process by which government officials are removed. Another quote:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction by a legislative vote, which judgment entails removal from office.

Impeachment's not the only means of removing govt. officers. This is axiomatic, and you're a desperate jack ass for even pretending it to be the case. In fact, there are many removals for which impeachment would be wholly inappropriate.

[ElNono]

He doesn't directly remove them; he nominates someone new and the Senate confirms him. Short of a legal term in place, this is absolutely allowed by the Constitution. In fact, that is exactly what the Constitution says the process is.

He implicitly would be removing somebody since there can only be 9 judges. That’s per law. Other than changing the law, he cannot do such a thing.

[ElNono]

dp

[Spurtacular]

He implicitly would be removing somebody since there can only be 9 judges. That’s per law. Other than changing the law, he cannot do such a thing.

Yes, he would be removing someone (implicitly). If you don't like that, you should advocate for legal life terms and not pretend life terms.

[ElNono]

Impeachment's not the only means of removing govt. officers. This is axiomatic, and you're a desperate jack ass for even pretending it to be the case. In fact, there are many removals for which impeachment would be wholly inappropriate.

Why are you angry at me for pointing out what’s the law? Ive been nothing but patient.

We’ve gone through law, logic, history and you’re still arguing about something that’s clearly incorrect.

Hey man, have it your way.

[Spurminator]

It's so cringy watching derp try to punch up.

[ElNono]

Yes, he would be removing someone (implicitly). If you don't like that, you should advocate for legal life terms and not pretend life terms.

I don’t have to do anything, tbh. There’s plenty of precedent supporting life terms. If anything, those that don’t want life terms have their work cut out for them.

[ElNono]

There’s no route/option/authority granted by the Constitution by which the POTUS can remove a judge, directly or indirectly. Heck, impeachment, which is the process to do that, has generally a high bar, because it upends the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification, or appointment)

[Th'Pusher]

It's so cringy watching derp try to punch up.
I can’t read it. I can generally appreciate a EN or SR impart knowledge but this is unbearable.

[Spurtacular]

I don’t have to do anything, tbh. There’s plenty of precedent supporting life terms. If anything, those that don’t want life terms have their work cut out for them.

That's okay if there's no precedent. If precedent was all we ever needed, there'd be no Constitution. There's no precedent for a president trying it and getting rejected either; the law is clear nonetheless.

Yea, those that don't want EFFECTUAL life terms do have their work cut out for them. But that doesn't validate your pretend law.

[Spurtacular]

It's so cringy watching derp try to punch up.

:lol Keeping up with the kids' terms, bruh. If that ain't "cringy," Adam Lambert.

[ElNono]

That's okay if there's no precedent. If precedent was all we ever needed, there'd be no Constitution. There's no precedent for a president trying it and getting rejected either; the law is clear nonetheless.

Yea, those that don't want EFFECTUAL life terms do have their work cut out for them. But that doesn't validate your pretend law.

It’s no pretend law, it’s written in Article 3 of the Constitution, and precedent is the #2 guidance for justices (after law, constitutional or otherwise). Even, in arguendo, somebody were to argue that ‘good behavior’ does not mean life term, there’s simply no way for the executive branch to remove a judge, only the legislative can do that and only through an impeachment proceeding. That’s also why the life term is implicit.

[ElNono]

BTW, it’s not that I’m ‘woke’ or anything, there’s like 100+ years of presidents trying to subvert the SCOTUS to their will. People don’t give credit on how scummy older presidents were and attempts like these are fairly we’ll documented. It’s actually pretty sobering to see how well the nation has survived to those attempts.

[Spurtacular]

You talked yourself into a law that doesn't exist, bruh. My favorite has to be when you got so desperate that you pretended impeach and remove are interchangeable terms. :lol At Nixon impeaching himself, obviously.

[Spurtacular]

That’s also why the life term is implicit.

Constitution is clear that terms are a matter of explicit law, actually (A 2, S2, C2). :lol At the desperation.

[Spurtacular]

BTW, it’s not that I’m ‘woke’ or anything, there’s like 100+ years of presidents trying to subvert the SCOTUS to their will. People don’t give credit on how scummy older presidents were and attempts like these are fairly we’ll documented. It’s actually pretty sobering to see how well the nation has survived to those attempts.

It's actually "pretty sobering" that people like you believe in pretend law that grants SC justices life terms.

If a president tried to replace a SC justice there would be political heat, no doubt. But at the end of the day the president is elected to make these decisions. The Found Fathers did liberally grant a pendulum of power to Congress to create term limits or even grant lifetime membership. But this simply has not occurred; and you're pretty salty about that. :lol

[ElNono]

Constitution is clear that terms are a matter of explicit law, actually (A 2, S2, C2). :lol At the desperation.

That’s not what that section says. It says that any appointments not specifically granted by the Constitution should be made by law. Says absolutely nothing about terms.

[ElNono]

You talked yourself into a law that doesn't exist, bruh. My favorite has to be when you got so desperate that you pretended impeach and remove are interchangeable terms. :lol At Nixon impeaching himself, obviously.

Link? Easy to verify what I posted and sources.

And yes, effectively, a successful impeachment process ends in removal. Not sure it can be more clear.

[ElNono]

It's actually "pretty sobering" that people like you believe in pretend law that grants SC justices life terms.

If a president tried to replace a SC justice there would be political heat, no doubt. But at the end of the day the president is elected to make these decisions. The Found Fathers did liberally grant a pendulum of power to Congress to create term limits or even grant lifetime membership. But this simply has not occurred; and you're pretty salty about that. :lol

The Constitution is the law of the land. You calling it ‘pretend law’ doesn’t make it so.

[Spurtacular]

That’s not what that section says. It says that any appointments not specifically granted by the Constitution should be made by law. Says absolutely nothing about terms.

And there is no law that currently establishes life terms for Supreme Court justices. Thus, the nomination / fulfillment process for putting a different justice in place is not restricted. Again, the Constitution is clear on this. If you don't like it, you can press for life terms enacted by Congress; but you don't get to make up your own law.

[ElNono]

The President isn’t elected ‘to make these decisions’. The President is elected to govern a country based on the attributes the Constitution grants it in Article 2 for the executive branch. A co-equal branch to the legislative and judiciary.

[Spurtacular]

Link? Easy to verify what I posted and sources.

And yes, effectively, a successful impeachment process ends in removal. Not sure it can be more clear.

No link is necessary. You've wildly determined that impeachment covers all manner of removal of Federal positions; and that's just hacky AF, bruh. For a guy who likes to assume the role of most knowledgeable person on the board, that is grossly wrongheaded.

[ElNono]

And there is no law that currently establishes life terms for Supreme Court justices. Thus, the nomination / fulfillment process for putting a different justice in place is not restricted. Again, the Constitution is clear on this. If you don't like it, you can press for life terms enacted by Congress; but you don't get to make up your own law.

Sure there is law. It’s the US Constitution, Article 3. It’s actually explicit about terms for judges. Reinforced by the fact that judges can only be removed by Congress through impeachment or by their own decision.

[Spurtacular]

The Constitution is the law of the land. You calling it ‘pretend law’ doesn’t make it so.

The Constitution is the law of the land. You pretending shit is in the Constitution / law that isn't there is your pretend law. It's been clearly explained to you. You know life terms are not the law (not counting that it is your pretend law).

[ElNono]

No link is necessary. You've wildly determined that impeachment covers all manner of removal of Federal positions; and that's just hacky AF, bruh. For a guy who likes to assume the role of most knowledgeable person on the board, that is grossly wrongheaded.

lol widly. I quoted what the Constitution says.

As of Nov 2003, there has been 61 federal/supreme judges investigated for impeachment (easily verifiable, I can provide reference). Only way to remove judges by a co-equal branch.

[Spurminator]

:lol Keeping up with the kids' terms, bruh.

Trying so hard.

[Spurtacular]

Sure there is law. It’s the US Constitution, Article 3. It’s actually explicit about terms for judges. Reinforced by the fact that judges can only be removed by Congress through impeachment or by their own decision.

If that were true by your interpretation, then judges could disregard any term limits and keep their jobs indefinitely.

[ElNono]

The Constitution is the law of the land. You pretending shit is in the Constitution / law that isn't there is your pretend law. It's been clearly explained to you. You know life terms are not the law (not counting that it is your pretend law).

Post #51 in this thread (again, apparently a post you still haven’t read) has a direct quote from the Constitution on judge term limits.

[Spurtacular]

lol widly. I quoted what the Constitution says.

As of Nov 2003, there has been 61 federal/supreme judges investigated for impeachment (easily verifiable, I can provide reference). Only way to remove judges by a co-equal branch.

Impeachment and removal simply aren't interchangeable. But I would agree that the inaction of Congress in making SC terms combined with the fluffiness of 'good behavior' wording in Article III has created an impression that SC justices are set for life provided they don't commit impeachable offenses.

[Spurtacular]

Post #51 in this thread (again, apparently a post you still haven’t read) has a direct quote from the Constitution on judge term limits.

I did go back the last time you cited it and countered it IIRC; but generally I don't go re-digging on stuff that could simply be re-posted easily.

[ElNono]

If that were true by your interpretation, then judges could disregard any term limits and keep their jobs indefinitely.

They do (federal/SCOTUS judges). Except for retirement, death or non-‘good behavior’ (impeachment).

That’s actually what it is right now. Changing that would involve a Constitutional amendment.

[ElNono]

Impeachment and removal simply aren't interchangeable. But I would agree that the inaction of Congress in making SC terms combined with the fluffiness of 'good behavior' wording in Article III has created an impression that SC justices are set for life provided they don't commit impeachable offenses.

It’s not just Congress, it takes states to ratify. It’s a high bar, tbh

[Spurtacular]

They do (federal/SCOTUS judges). Except for retirement, death or non-‘good behavior’ (impeachment).

That’s actually what it is right now. Changing that would involve a Constitutional amendment.

Article II makes it clear that Congress can provide for appointments (terms). Certainly, the judicial branch has predictably taken as much power as they can unto themselves in lieu of Congress setting proper appointments.

[ElNono]

Article II makes it clear that Congress can provide for appointments (terms). Certainly, the judicial branch has predictably taken as much power as they can unto themselves in lieu of Congress setting proper appointments.

Appointments are not terms. Appointment is the ability to fill up an available position. Article 2 concludes with the clarification that any appointment powers not implicitly stated on the Constitution must be made by law.

Terms are defined separately (ie: Article 2, Section 1 for the executive):

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term

Not coincidentally, Article 3 which sets up the judicial, states the terms for judgeships.

(And Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 establish terms for Congresscritters)

[Spurtacular]

Appointments are not terms. Appointment is the ability to fill up an available position. Article 2 concludes with the clarification that any appointment powers not implicitly stated on the Constitution must be made by law.

Terms are defined separately (ie: Article 2, Section 1 for the executive):

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term

Not coincidentally, Article 3 which sets up the judicial, states the terms for judgeships.

(And Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 establish terms for Congresscritters)

Appointments are not terms (explicitly); but they can include terms. I would say that it would've been better if the Constitution was more explicit on that matter. But wherein the legislative and executive branch was subject to terms, it is clear that the FF saw value in flexibility on this point. But they do not say that justices are guaranteed life terms either (as that would not adhere to the flexibility of the appointment). Again, the judges naturally took advantage of the power vacuum in lieu of inaction by Congress.

[ElNono]

Appointments are not terms (explicitly); but they can include terms. I would say that it would've been better if the Constitution was more explicit on that matter. But wherein the legislative and executive branch was subject to terms, it is clear that the FF saw value in flexibility on this point. But they do not say that justices are guaranteed life terms either (as that would not adhere to the flexibility of the appointment). Again, the judges naturally took advantage of the power vacuum in lieu of inaction by Congress.

I think, and this is certainly an opinion, that the judicial was the branch delegated to be as apolitical as possible, due to the fact that their check and balance role is to simply ascertain that law is applied properly (as opposed to Congress and the Executive, whose roles are to create and execute the law, respectively). In that sense, I do think there’s a value to longer tenured judges (experience, knowledge of jurisprudence, law, guaranteeing speedy verdicts).

That’s why I mentioned on my first post in this thread that I didn’t know how I felt about terms on the judicial specifically. I think it’s a different ball game from the clear cut political branches.

[Spurtacular]

I think, and this is certainly an opinion, that the judicial was the branch delegated to be as apolitical as possible, due to the fact that their check and balance role is to simply ascertain that law is applied properly (as opposed to Congress and the Executive, whose roles are to create and execute the law, respectively). In that sense, I do think there’s a value to longer tenured judges (experience, knowledge of jurisprudence, law, guaranteeing speedy verdicts).

That’s why I mentioned on my first post in this thread that I didn’t know how I felt about terms on the judicial specifically. I think it’s a different ball game from the clear cut political branches.

I agree with that. I think many if not most of the FF were lawyers and they saw the courts as fair-minded entities in large part. I don't think they fully appreciated the possibility of the judicial branch being politicized.

[boutons_deux]

the judicial was the branch delegated to be as apolitical as possible

a different ball game from the clear cut political branches.

that was the theory, along with wealthy white male slave-owning, anti-democratic FFs assuming "good faith" on all sides.

Judges are not apolitical. Now we have the bad-faith Repugs railroading totally unqualified, deeply politicized judges, from K on down, throughout the Federal judiciary.

So, term limits for all Federal judgeships.

But it won't be a solution, since the Repugs abandoned any pretense, appearance of "good faith" / pro-For The People decades ago.