Cruz and Romney Propose Term Limits for Congress

[Spurtacular]

no

Look it up, head.

[spurraider21]

Look it up, head.

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

[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 Cons ution is a 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.

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.

I’m aware of how SCOTUS works, my point is how re ed 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

[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]

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

You didn't look it up....

[Spurtacular]

bruh

Sperm shielding for Lite.

[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....

I did. Turns out you were wrong.

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

[Spurtacular]

I did. Turns out you were wrong.

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

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 Cons utional standard or law that ensures lifetime appointments. You haven't looked it up, or you would've posted your already.

[Chris]

Appears to have bipartisan support...

[spurraider21]

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

The US cons ution 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 cons utes "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 Cons ution 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 up.

[Spurtacular]

The US cons ution 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 cons utes "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 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 at your good behavior bull , which you obviously didn't put verbatim for a reason (or list the article/section/clause). Now, here's what the Cons ution 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 at your good behavior bull , which you obviously didn't put verbatim for a reason (or list the article/section/clause). Now, here's what the Cons ution 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 cons ution 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 cons ution 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 Cons ution ... 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.