General Discussion

suston96

(4,175 posts)

45. Stuck? Yes, stuck with the great ones also.......

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:04 PM

Feb 2014

However, justices should serve for a limited time. 20 years?

Term limits for elected officials is an insidious, self-inflicted surrender of the power of the right to vote.

Repeal the Twenty Second Amendment, which was passed by a Republican congress and ratified quickly by Republican legislatures.

It was a vengeful assault on the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Term limits and National elections for Supreme Court Justices? Your opinions please. nt [View all] clarice Feb 2014 OP

No judge or justice should ever be elected. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #1

+ struggle4progress Feb 2014 #71

Not an idea I would support. hack89 Feb 2014 #2

Thank you for your kind words. nt clarice Feb 2014 #8

Nothing personal. I will change my post. nt hack89 Feb 2014 #9

LOL...I was kidding...it's all good ! nt clarice Feb 2014 #26

No...and neither do I.... clarice Feb 2014 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Feb 2014 #77

As much as I love politics, I want my judges to be non-partisan. joeglow3 Feb 2014 #3

With all respect..... clarice Feb 2014 #37

Exactly my point joeglow3 Feb 2014 #64

elected judges? Always a bad idea. bowens43 Feb 2014 #4

No to both. MineralMan Feb 2014 #5

They should last only as long as the President who appoints them is in office. Autumn Feb 2014 #6

Wow joeglow3 Feb 2014 #13

What? You think this supreme court has done well? Autumn Feb 2014 #18

My point exactly !!! Thanks. nt clarice Feb 2014 #22

All of them? onenote Feb 2014 #55

The ones that were there did well enough seeing as how Chimpy Autumn Feb 2014 #68

And I have heard people on the right say the EXACT SAME THING joeglow3 Feb 2014 #66

You think they did their job in 2000?? Autumn Feb 2014 #67

Probably not, but I have heard many on the left say they did a great job in 1973 joeglow3 Feb 2014 #73

What pissed you off in 73? Autumn Feb 2014 #75

Where did I say something pissed me off in 1973? joeglow3 Feb 2014 #80

You've mentioned 73 in 2 posts so I figured it meant something to you, Autumn Feb 2014 #82

How so? nt clarice Feb 2014 #19

If you completely removed the Supreme Court with each new president? joeglow3 Feb 2014 #65

Absolutely not. NuclearDem Feb 2014 #7

This ^ Adsos Letter Feb 2014 #51

A one-term limit of 20 years or so, maybe. But direct election? No. And make them Vincardog Feb 2014 #76

+100%. I was going to post the exact same thing! :) reformist2 Feb 2014 #79

I was thinking more along these lines... clarice Feb 2014 #10

Then the same should be applied to the executive and legislative branches of govt. smokey775 Feb 2014 #16

BINGO !!!! nt clarice Feb 2014 #24

Well, land-owning white males at least. NuclearDem Feb 2014 #40

Thanks for the reality check. GeorgeGist Feb 2014 #69

Excuse me but Washington was the richest man in the colonies. The founding FATHERS wanted Vincardog Mar 2014 #84

One should prefer a legal environment that doesn't vary with the winds struggle4progress Feb 2014 #72

Bad idea. smokey775 Feb 2014 #11

No. That would be a nightmare for us. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #12

Why do you think so? nt clarice Feb 2014 #15

I think social conservatives would be more motivated to get out the vote and we could hrmjustin Feb 2014 #21

I'm not so sure of that. We have been doing a good job of getting out the voters. nt clarice Feb 2014 #23

Personally I would rather not take the chance. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #25

I can see your point. nt clarice Feb 2014 #35

Do you mean like in 2010? YarnAddict Feb 2014 #46

No. Heck No. Hell No. Fuck No. cali Feb 2014 #17

Shouldn't Judges reflect the the will of the people under their jurisdiction? clarice Feb 2014 #20

The point of a republican (lower case r) government is to provide protections NuclearDem Feb 2014 #27

Good point. nt clarice Feb 2014 #31

No, they should reflect the will of the constitution. smokey775 Feb 2014 #29

Yup. nt clarice Feb 2014 #34

no. not even close. good grief. cali Feb 2014 #30

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. Deep Breath. nt clarice Feb 2014 #32

I don't need a deep breath. Here's where I'm coming from: cali Feb 2014 #42

I'm not sure that it IS preferable...I was just wanting others opinions. NT clarice Feb 2014 #44

No. onenote Feb 2014 #58

No, the reason for it was so they could stay independent treestar Feb 2014 #28

Both are bad ideas. n/t Laelth Feb 2014 #33

So, staying under the current system, we are stuck with someone like C. Thomas forever !!! nt clarice Feb 2014 #36

Well, just until he retires or dies in office. smokey775 Feb 2014 #38

I think then, that my point is made. nt clarice Feb 2014 #39

If your point is that the Warren court, which was quite unpopular onenote Feb 2014 #60

Stuck? Yes, stuck with the great ones also....... suston96 Feb 2014 #45

We, the People at least fredamae Feb 2014 #41

Thank you. nt clarice Feb 2014 #43

And take the chance that a TeaBagger would be elected to the court? OregonBlue Feb 2014 #47

With judicial appointments, a citizen can at least pretend that a nominee was chosen on merit. Aristus Feb 2014 #48

With massive infusions of Corp. money thanks to Citizens United. smokey775 Feb 2014 #49

National Elections, hell no. Term Limits, absolutely. MicaelS Feb 2014 #50

Well if you want to open up interpretation of the constitution upaloopa Feb 2014 #52

My point exactly. smokey775 Feb 2014 #53

No and no. Bad idea for SC elections. Term limits already exist as elections. n/t FSogol Feb 2014 #54

Opposed to both badtoworse Feb 2014 #56

Term Limits, yes. enlightenment Feb 2014 #57

I'd like to see them limited to one 18 year term SwankyXomb Feb 2014 #59

I agree. nt clarice Feb 2014 #61

No. HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #62

We have term limits for various political offices in California. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #63

Ridiculous idea. They are already partisan enough. Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #70

No. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #74

Why? So the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson can buy them too? Hell no.... Rowdyboy Feb 2014 #78

There is no way customerserviceguy Feb 2014 #81

I like it the way it is. Calista241 Mar 2014 #83

No, emphatically. That's all we need, corporate money buying the fucking Supreme Court. eom TransitJohn Mar 2014 #85

Horrible idea. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #86