Dems ready to submit a bill giving term limits to SCOTUS. How about you give yourselves term limits, assholes?
(www.reuters.com)
DRAIN THE SWAMP
Comments (471)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I support Term limits for Congress!
I support abolishing the Congress.
Communist Control Act should already cover them
They break their oaths to protect and defend the constitution daily -- Charge them with Treason!
I agree.
They should be lynched for Treason.
She adopted two black kids from haiti and supported IL lockdowns. Not the best choice out there.
I support abolishing George Soros.
And his offspring
I support hanging George and Alex Soros
Is Alex Soros even a threat? From what i remember hearing he's complete spoiled adult child who is fucked without his father's money and influence.
This is the real plan. 🐸👍
Necessary.
Just the house. Founders never wanted it. They were right.
Wait what? They didn't include the House in the Constitution? When did it get added? How was the Senate to be elected?
The 17th Amendment is when we really took a knife to the gut. Prior, state legislatures voted for Senators.
MuadDon knows whats up.
People don't understand that the reason for dividing congress into separate houses was so there would be popular representation (house of representatives) and state representation (senate).
Making them both popular elections kind of defeated the purpose of having two houses to begin with.
There's still the fact that the Senate represents states equally, while the House represents the population, but that switch really fucked things worse than they were with the cronyism
It netfs the power of the individual states and centralizes power around money and entrenchment.
Pretty damaging to a republic
What were the people who advocated this trying to do?
What was the public sentiment?
Article 1 established the lower house of congress.
Right. I just never looked at functionality without the House
Ben Franklin said should be like jury duty. And only a daily per diem for days they worked not salaries. No source just remember reading that somewhere a couple years ago.
I think that's in his autobiography, which is a great read. You might have encountered it somewhere else
Thank you! I thought both Houses were included. It does make sense to let our representatives elect Senators. Then again my State legislature is heavily R, so I would say that.
There was to be no house of reps and senators were to be (and were, for a time) appointed, not elected.
Democracy is evil, as the will of the scum-sucking masses tends to be evil.
They also want to limit the President to two nominations per four year term. I wonder what they plan to do if, God forbid, two Justices retire and a third dies during the same administration...
I'm sure they thought of that scenario
You realize you're talking about the House Dems, right
Good luck with that, Nance. I’m sure the judges will vote to abolish their own branch of government.
dumb bitch should go back to hairdresser with softer ice cream
B-but it was a setup!
Good morning...Sunday morning. :)
and as soon as they replace a handfull of justices and regain another liberal majority -- "well, look at the clock! Time to change back to lifetime appointments!"
DEFUND THE CONGRESS
Congress funds the congress. :(
Highly overrated
I don't know what I support other than this...
If there's one thing I can be sure of Pelosi is well past her sale by date.
I don't know what's worse, her or her voters.
If I went into the shop and saw a pasty all grey and green with mould I wouldn't even need to look for the date stamp to know it's gone off.
She's well with in that category. She's past the post. Singular is a complement. She's so gone off she's off her rocker.
The problem is liberal elites like her are deprived of the trials of existence. As soon as her servants sees the slightest hint of off colour they throw it away before she sees it.
Now after her life of luxury her senses failing she'll never enjoy them to the full but her imagination fills in relentlessly. I'm sure her fantasy world is amazing but it's not the one the rest of us resides upon.
She will die very lonely stuck in the hell of her creation. A world filled with people, infinite people but none of them real and then she'll spend the rest of her eternity rummaging through her own fantasy world trying to find someone other than that of her own imagining. She will never abandon herself and in doing so she will never leave her own pathetic little world.
Lol.... you Canadian or British?
I originate from my mother. I had no choice in the matter.
A true man of Britain is his own castle.
He may roam the lands those to which we are familiar and those to which are new found but he himself is an Island, a land, a continent and an entire world.
The true British took on the world and defeated much of it on even terms and in doing to proved some of those among us are a world unto themselves but sadly in any given world most among it are part yet not the parcel.
No man is an island
Yes and no.
Of all the things there are the only thing you can be sure of and that you are in full possession of is yourself.
Discover that treasure before moving on to others.
Sadly the sorrowful tale of the common man is for another to find their own treasure before they might find it themselves.
Most men quite sadly lose possession of themselves long before their time has run out.
Also I don't read books so much so don't know this poem that comes up in search. Seems defeatist to me. Like depression. A superfluous way of saying we're all just a cog in the machine or a leaf in the wind. We call that sort of tiny thing, taking a basic obvious thing but then dressing it up to try to make it something big, gay.
Though I must confess their comes a point of mastery where we risk our fate for that of others.
(fat nadler waddles into the chat)
Om my God, is that thing going to capsize?
No. That was just Guam falling out of his pants.
But some hams are a planet.
I like your name haha
Pasty. Off her rocker. Rummage. A touch of Monty Python flair. Gotta be a Brit.
Term limits and stop letting them do insider trading. You go in congress, you shouldn't leave wealthy. It should be public service not serving themselves
Freeze assets. Also a conflict of interest clause for any family members getting government contracts or lucrative corporate board member gigs.
They made Carter sell his farm before the presidency but I guess conflicts in congress show you only have to not listen to the OIG and they will just kind of go away
This was the one thing I agreed with AOC about (I think it was her). She wanted term limits and I think lower pay for Congress members. Seems like a great idea, but she had to go back shit crazy and communist.
She voted on increasing congress member pay last year... she also defended her decision that I don’t care to look up and quote
She said that otherwise they would find illegal ways of making money. Can’t make this shit up
That’s right. Such a scumbag cunt
Here here.
Yeah they definitely wouldn't want to make more money on top of making more money, Alexandria 🤑
When it comes to the direction of my country I only take advise from bartenders..... ;)
Interesting
Ill subscribe to this
Show me a career politician and I'll show you a corrupt politician. Every. Fucking. Time.
Whatever happened to needing an amendment to restructure our government?
Pretty sure the 6:3 court will tell them to shove that bill up their ass if it somehow passes.
If Barrett was so good, she wouldn't need shills spamming for her.
I honestly don’t know anything about her. All I know is FoxNews is pushing her. So, whatever that means...
you know what that means
It means choose the Latina
If she was bad someone would post a link to her actual bad judgments so we can read them directly and see the full details in context.
I've been asking for this for several days, but no one has posted such a response yet.
https://thedonald.win/p/HXjxedvz/sunday-gunday-psa--acb-is-not-pr/
Among other things.
Just go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it a "guidance" in the Illinois lockdown case.
Jacobson is scary as fuck and hadn't been used by the courts as precedent for 70+ years, and for good reason, until Ellis and Barret came along. That case law gives the government wayyy too much control over our lives. It's as bad as Wickard v Filburn and Plessy v Ferguson.
She shouldn't have ever been within a mile of concurring with Ellis just based off of Ellis's use of Jacobson. That indicates to me that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to either that I will not support her nomination.
I read her ruling here, and indeed, this ruling of hers seems terrible. To me it appeared to be her own preference to keep guns away from people, and one could easily make a different argument than she did.
This differs from other rulings of hers that people linked that given the case, I actually could see her reasoning and established precedent, and it appears to be justified.
Thank you!
How about a paper written in school about how Catholics must recuse when the law conflicts with dogma?
Do we really want to wind up with another Sessions-like scenario when she bows out during a hearing on immigration because the Pope says we should let illegal immigrants do whatever they want? Or recusing herself on 2A claims because the Pope has an opinion on "weapons of war"? It's precisely the globalist desires of the corrupted Catholic church that we need to defend against, and I say this as a former Catholic.
How about the ruling that the lockdowns are totally fine? Sorry in advance for the trash politico link, but it was the only full pdf of the ruling that I could find in my browser history. Sure, it was under Wood, but she's there too.
The appeals court could have remanded the case to let them at least try to prove this "difficult to prevail case". Anyone with eyes can see it happening, so the evidence exists. And, look, I get it, appeals court generally upholds cases as a matter of course, so successful appeals that change outcomes are rare. But that's pretty wishy-washy IMHO.
Also, even more damning, Anaconda agrees with QuaranIsToiletPaper.
Thank you!
So I read the links you posted, thank you.
Regarding her paper, she does point out this is in regards to the death penalty, where it would be difficult for a judge to separate their feelings for the case. I don't want another sessions like scenario, but I'm not sure she would have the same stance regarding immigration and feel as strongly about it as sentencing someone to death. It's also a positive thing if a judge feels upfront that they cannot fairly judge a case, they should recuse themselves. The real question to ask her is how often would her feelings get in the way. This paper tells me more that she is unlikely to ever impose the death penalty.
For ruling you linked to regarding lockdowns, while I personally dislike all these lockdowns, this case was not about lockdowns in general but whether there should be exceptions in certain cases due to 1A. I actually find her argument compelling, and I'm not sure that the same cases presented with the same evidence would have another judge rule differently.
On the other hand, the 2A case that rentfREEEE_since2016 posted, I do not find her argument compelling at all. From what I understand, other judges also reviewed that case and came to the opposite conclusion. To me her ruling seemed more to be looking for an excuse to keep more guns out of people's hands.
I read that case you linked, and am not sure what to make of it. Churches were exempt from the 50 person max gathering, but nothing else?
She basically says the clearly unequal and discriminatory practice of enforcement re: blm is local, not State. Have "the Republicans" followed up, suing the local government?
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308232087342784512?s=19
Also
Duckduckgo.com
This has been posted and ignored here.
Edit - lol, just a downvote. Cool
The guy seems like a leftist whacko. I only read one of the cases, but don't see how ACB did anything wrong.
I'd prefer the other chick in FL anyway, but can you speak to anything about this link specifically?
The pro-lifers love her because they think she is a solid vote to kill Roe v Wade. The mask debaters really hate her over a recent decision. The rest of us is wondering how she is on other issues. And whether she is strong enough to resist the temptation of Washington DC cocktail parties that befell so many "conservative" justices before her.
I'm as pro life as anyone, but I don't think the odds look good for overturning Roe v Wade, no matter who gets nominated.
The legal findings of that case were trash, yes, which is why the left freaks out about it so much, but, historically, getting that case reheard 50 years later is a tall order. The best we can hope for is ruling any regulations as constitutional that restrict abortion to "rape, birth defects, or incest" like the dems are always screaming about (even though those are like 2% of abortions). That's the biggest chance to save the most babies that is actually attainable.
You will get at best 3 votes to overturn Roe v Wade assuming the justice that will fill RBG votes for overturning.
No chance.
He should nominate Merrick Garland just to explode their minds. It would be an olive branch they wouldn't even take
Finally, I found the correct answer, it's just sad that I had to search so far down.
People need to read the Constitution, and they need to comprehend what it means.
The only way to institute term limits on the Supreme Court is an amendment. Without an amendment, the court will just rule any law that does it as unconstitutional,and, therefor, invalid.
HASHTAG STOPSIMPING
Roberts is not on our side. When we get in Lagoa (I don't like ACB, she was for lockdowns), its 5:3:1 with Roberts choosing whatever position will get him less shit on.
Maybe we should look for a nominee willing to follow Roberts into the bathroom and give him a quick shanking.
technical bullshit is their job
If we impeached judges because we disagreed with their decisions politically then that would be a Bad Thing for society
They won't take it up. "Conflict of interest".
Do try to keep up with the treason - it's rampant and you shoudl expect it by now!
Should be a 9-0 decision, it's clearly written in the document lol.
The republicrats hate constitutional process when it matters. Amendments were abandon for expediency. This is why we need constitutionalists back in charge. And trials for open treason. This shit has to stop.
We can absolutely amend the constitution if the people's will is strong enough.
You don't need anything if you just do it and pretend it was legal. See: Everything that has happened in 2020.
Pretty sure Article III gives Federal Judges tenure for life so long as they remain in good standing.
That didn't last 10 minutes.
Petulant children to be exact.
Couldn't the Senate just have rubber stamped it as expired? It was SO important to rush through, but then stopped until custom ordered pens came in. And no impeachable offense.
Every single time. They're like that stupid kid in school nobody wanted to be frens with, but then your sympathetic hippy parents felt bad for them, and made you play with them anyways.
We have lots of domestic enemies
I actually agree on term limits for judges. But you better as hell have term limits for the rest of congress. No way should Chuck Schumer be in government his entire adult life.
I mean term limits for judges is an arguable point. Term limits for congress and senate is just a flat out necessity. I actually think both the left and right would be ok with it.
Here's the thing though... I want Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in the senate until they fucking die.
I’m sure Justice Cruz and President Paul will be replaced by some some fine new MAGA Senators.
I'd rather see them move from the Legislative branch into the Executive and Judicial branches, personally.
A conservative liberty lover in charge of telling the government what/how to enforce.
A conservative justice lover in charge of telling the government what the Constitution says, has said for the past several hundred years, and will continue to say unless 33 states agree otherwise.
In either case, I agree they can stick around for a while.
Dr Politician Judge, he's a triple threat!
Republicans having to step down would make way for people to put in better ones they actually like. Like people much further right.
I would pay to watch Cruz accidentally play incest bj porn into his microphone during oral argumetns
Yup, that's why term limits are bullshit. It takes away the will of the People. Some don't like it because they think that's what's keeping shitbags like Pelosi in office, as if when she termed out she wouldn't be replaced by Pelosi 2.0 because that's exactly what her district wants. If the people of her district actually wanted someone else, they'd vote for someone else already.
Which is why our rulers will never vote for it.
Didn't the founding fathers not want to put a tangible limit so that judges would not make pandering "legacy" decisions in the same vein as McCain.
yeah, and you dont want judges who move on to sweet lobbying jobs either
People are simply living far longer than the founders could ever imagine. It was an extreme rarity to live past 70 back then and there weren't life extension drugfs or machines available back then. Ruth Ginsberg was basically in a coma for over a year, she was completely incapacitated even 4 years ago and could not do even the simplistic of tasks required to serve in the court. This wasnt even a thing back then, once you went senile you had, at most 2 years or so to live, today its well over a decade. It really should be around 18 years, yes what you say may be true but so would anyone else who was about to retire or near death do as well. Kennedy did this with the gay marriage ruling and then retired 3 years later.
Not true. If you made it past 30 you were likely to live in to your 70s. Lots more people died young which brought down the average.
Ben Franklin was there at the constitutional convention and he was like 80.
Life expectancy was around 60 years of age or less. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were outliers. They were wealthy enough to be taken care of while the majority of people could not.
Because life expectancy counts everyone. Infant mortality and young people died in accidents at a much higher rate then than they do now, which lowers the life expectancy.
But like I said, if you made it to 30 or 35, you probably made it to 70. Old people were less common, but it wasn't a rarity.
The problem with SCOTUS judges has never been term limits. It's been the lack of accountability for a group that is supposed to argue about the application of laws being turned into a group that creates laws.
Yea, I'm not actually totally opposed to this idea. Term limits for SCOTUS wouldn't be bad, but we also need them for Congress ASAP
Assuming he ever becomes an adult.
They already have a term limit: you only have the seat for 1 life.
Plus however long your party can pull off the Weekend at Bernie's act.
Which we now know is a little under a year.
Plus they're granted a dying wish, apparently.
No wish too difficult for their genie!
She collected all the dragonballs.
I swear to God dims are like children. The second life doesn't go their way, they no longer want to play.
Every policy they have is either "I'm banker give me all the money" or flip the board
I second the motion to expel them from the game
I think if you shit yourself at the podium, you are well past your limit and should be removed immediately.
Whoa whoa whoa. Just because I had a rough night of blow and huge black rented penises, doesn't mean I should be removed.
Or ar least you get the belt
Whaaaa orange man gets three lifetime appointments reeeeeeee
We’re not done yet. Let’s see if the Reaper has any more for us in the next few weeks.
Now imagine if he gets a couple more next term...
6 before 2025, possibly
Terrible timing to cede that in SCOTUS though.
We also need to remove the retirement plan that lets Congress live like kings for life, first
They did not give a FUCK about term limits when Ruth Bader Ginsberg outlasted my parents mortgage on the bench.
LOL. To be fair, I'm in favor of an AGE limit. 80 years seems like a good number.
Even the Bible expects you to be dead by then.
“ The days of our lives are seventy years; And if by reason of strength they are eighty years, Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” Ps 90:10
It takes 8 years to be a lawyer. So the earliest you can be a lawyer is about 26. Then you have to have years of experience as a lawyer before you can be a judge. Once a judge, you start on very petty crimes for years. Maybe you move to your local appeals court after getting some experience. You get noticed one day and you become a state court of appeals judge. Only then would you likely get noticed to make a nomination to the supreme court. You will be no one where near 35.
Everyone can see through the Democrats. Holy fuck they are so full of shit.
“We didn’t get our way and we dislike the current president. Time to shred the constitution!” - Dems.
And the electoral college etc.
I may have to do an edit on that thing where the banksy picture got shredded.
"What? Limit MY power? Um...no." - Everyone in power since George Washington.
This. The main goal of having power is maintaining it.
They are such sore losers its kind of funny
Future Headline: Supreme Court says that Supreme Court Term Limits unconstitutional.
The entire supreme court would recuse itself due to conflict of interest leading to instant passage
Supreme Court doesn't have to recuse over dick.
Any reason they do so is out of courtesy and decorum.
They've interpreted "good behavior" to be live time appointment.
I'm gonna love when that inevitably happens lol
Might be the cherry on top to 2020
This is just like the Dems wanting to get rid of the Electoral College. It's a childish "I'm only losing because the rules are unfair" mentality.
most of their voter base doesnt even understand how the electoral college works.
they believe its actually a literal panel of independent voters that can be bought and sold, and arent limited to voting based on the majority vote of their state.
a lot of them literally believe all the red states are actually blue like them but the electoral college votes against the people which is just clearly not true.
this idea is a myth passed down from dem parent to dem child for at least 3 generations now that the 'electoral college' is a shady group of people who truly decide the president and that the popular vote of the state doesnt matter.
they simply dont understand how, if you removed the electoral college voting system, essentially youd only have to have two voting booths in NYC and LA and not even need to count the rest out of pure population.
somehow they think this "popular vote" is representative of majority population. and it is, in a way. but only in those two areas. 100% of the rest of the country including the rest of cali and NYS could vote red in such a situation and it would still only ever be blue guaranteed -- hence why you wouldnt even need voting booths anywhere else in the country anymore. or even to campaign outside them.
what would happen would be disastrous as the interests of the various states would be invalidated, its likely their economies would crumble as they lost any voice at all, and theyd probably end up seceding from the union over it. if they had any choice in the matter.
Once again, once they lose power, then they want to change the rules. Before the Senate needed 60 votes to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice but seeing that the Dems didn't want to work with the Republicans they lowered. I feel they should have to deal with a Republican ran SCOTUS for a generation or two just like we had to with a Dem ran one.
Lol they won’t, this is just for the Supreme Court since it is a Republican majority now
They should just stop pretending and scrawl "Democrats win forever" on a piece of paper and put that up for a vote.
90% of everything that happened this year has been unconstitutional. Hasn't even slowed the dems down.
Welcome to Democrat Strategy 2020
Purely a distraction from the fact that they want to pack the courts.
I would actually enjoy seeing this get passed only for the court to rule it unconstitutional.
Trump would veto before it would get there
I hope we end up controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House. Ok time to pack the courts with 2 conservatives justices a year or pass an amendment that says the number of Justices shall be 9.
Supermajority in both Houses is essential
The commie party must be abolished
LOL!! Democrats are the first ones to fight term limits for themselves. Former House Speaker Tom Foley from Washington State was term limited by a voter referendum in 1991. He sued in the United States District Court, and won, but karma caught up to him, and he was denied a 16th term, when he was defeated by Republican George Nethercutt.
Democrats: "Term limits for thee, but not for me."
Tenure The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." The term "good behaviour" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behaviour); this has occurred fourteen times.
Methinks ole Nancy can go fuck her formaldehyded body...
It also warrants asking why RBG wasn't removed for lack of good behavior
"No givebacks, no quitsies, times infinity!!!!" A bunch of fucking four-year olds.
Where was this bill when the court was liberally biased?
the way this ends: they are defeated. because if we dont, they will defeat us.
we both have a gun to the others head. we need to pull the trigger. no balking.
arrests will happen. exposures will happen. it HAS to happen.
They still believe that. And that he breaks lawa left and right.
Imagine being as arrogant and corrupt as Congress. Half those bastards should be jailed for treason.
3/4
I actually would support term limits for SCOTUS even if they were 30 years or some shit I just don’t think they should be allowed to serve when they get as old as RBG especially if their main purpose is to block a president from the opposing party’s nomination. That being said we ain’t doing this shit now they had plenty of time prior to Trump to propose this. No way.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if this backfired on them and wound up resulting in a bill for congressional term limits instead?
This comes right after a bill to limit presidential powers. It's clear as day they're already accepting defeat.
SCOTUS is a co-equal branch to the Senate and House. They can't do this. It's unconstitutional. They need to pass an amendment and can't because they've decided the flyover states are full of subhumans who must not be spoken to.
Why is the left's default answer to losing to change the rules?
He should demand they include term limits for Congress. Call their bluff.
Unconstitutional, and they know it. Just more Democrat bovine excrement to feed narratives for the mindless sheep
Sounds like the Democrats are tired of losing.
ROTFL... they're at the 'bargaining' stage of the grief cycle!
I thought they were at the depression stage, but they are slow tards, so they are before depression! My god this is glorious.
PS: I'll accept term limits for SCOTUS after all of Trump's SCOTUS picks die in office.
Scratch that... after 100 years of Trump dynastic appointments, then maybe.
I agree. People seems to be blinded by how easily this will be gamed when you know exactly when justices will be forced out. Instead of a roll of a dice on chance deaths from age complications, we’ll get essentially permalocked seats for Democrat or Republican picks to a higher degree than we already do. Justices will likely never serve the full term and instead retire early when under favorable control of the other branches. The chance for a Scalia or Ginsburg swap will happen once in multiple centuries instead of almost every cycle.
Having a firm end date changes the risk calculation enormously to early retirement.
Hey, leave Sotomayer's medium out of this
Omg take your ball and go home you fucking crybaby Dems.
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
If it's not an amendment, they can flush it down the toilet with a simple majority when they're in power again and if it's fits their agenda.