Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'd rather see voted, not appointed in addition to term limits.
The public votes for judges all the time, why dosent this apply to federal supreme court justices?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
With regard to the Supreme Court ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
The public votes for judges all the time, why dosent this apply to federal supreme court justices?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But it clearly is.
There are ways to study dynamic systems which have been used to model and predict outcomes, yes. For example we could model (like a game) the voting and decision systems to predict what kind of negotiations would happen if instead of Congress we switched to a parliamentary system. We could do repeated simulations that would establish the fairness or unfairness of particular setups. We could then know how the system would respond if, say, 23% of voters were disenfranchised or the impact of letting prison inmates vote.
We could do the same with studying term limits, and it would not even be very expensive. What is the impact of an eight year term limit for supreme court judges, and what is the risk that it could enable an overthrow of the government? This is a mathematical question that can be mostly answered by a well done study. Its not an unreasonable request.
Computing is a luxury the framers did not have. We have computing, and it ought to be used.
I hear what you're saying. You aren't completely wrong.
Here in USA we cannot get any changes made because of our strong conservative impulse (such as my own about this major change). We're certainly never getting term limits for supreme court judges in the current political climatel. I'm talking about a way to get something done. We do a simulation to prove any new term limits are fair and will not destabilize the government. It just needs to be a study in game theory showing that it won't end in tragedy. That could go a long, long way towards assuring me that it was a good idea to make a change.
But I assume you can tell what people in the thread actually are doing. They are upset that the system worked the way it was supposed to. They don't like the supreme court that has resulted, and so they want to claim the system isn't working. Because they don't like the decisions it is making, but it hasn't overthrown the government. It made decisions against Trump. Its not broken. Its just not tasty right now.
Last edited:
Delusional and sophomoric silliness from the person who tells us:
That is, "we shouldn't mess with it" but, rather, wait for change or "effect change."
You think that you can get supreme court term limits put in in USA, and I'm the delusional one. I give you a 2% chance of ever making that happen.
Putting words in my mouth is not delusional, it's dishonest.
How creative of you.
Ok, forget the simulation stuff. If you want term limits on the supreme court then make a case that tenure has been hurting the country since its founding, because we've had no term limits on supreme court justices since that time. Just prove that tenure has always been a bad idea and that this isn't something you've recently decided is bad because of some recent court decisions.
Just another thought.
I think term limits are a good idea, but the lack of term limits is not what got you in the current situation, and imposing term limits may not be what gets you out.
Consider this.
Pass a law that the Senate must vote on any Supreme Court nominee within a two week period. If a vote is not held in that time the nominee is automatically appointed to the court. No playing games.
I think term limits are a good idea, but the lack of term limits is not what got you in the current situation, and imposing term limits may not be what gets you out.
Consider this.
Pass a law that the Senate must vote on any Supreme Court nominee within a two week period. If a vote is not held in that time the nominee is automatically appointed to the court. No playing games.
Some might find Term Limits and Turnover on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Comparative View interesting.
Seriously? That was even funnier that your 2% fabrication.
Ok, then how about 3%?Seriously? That was even funnier that your 2% fabrication.
I don't support term limits for the Supreme Court. However, I do support reforming the processes by which they are appointed in order to remove any changing-of-the-rules-on-a-partisan-opportunity. I also support trying justices for perjury when applicable, and impeaching them when appropriate.
This reasoning could be applied elsewhere. Do you think there should be age limits for RF posters? Would 75 be a good limit?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's when we reach a higher level of maturity, dah!This reasoning could be applied elsewhere. Do you think there should be age limits for RF posters? Would 75 be a good limit?
Probably should have a lower limit to post as well...say, over 30...That's when we reach a higher level of maturity, dah!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But then how would you get educated???Probably should have a lower limit to post as well...say, over 30...
I'll let you know in 5 months and 27 days -- if I live so long.This reasoning could be applied elsewhere. Do you think there should be age limits for RF posters? Would 75 be a good limit?
The public would pay little attention
to the candidates' qualifications &
agenda. Remember...the public is
even dumber than Congress.
I sincerely hope you live for many years to come in health and prosperity.