11

Desperate Democrats Now Want To Place Term Limits On Supreme Court Justices

Posted by $ nickursis 1 month, 4 weeks ago to Government
59 comments | Share | Flag

This is how they fight, if they can't cheat it, cheat bigger. FDR won unconstitutional social security by threatening to pack the court till it ruled for him, and they have never looked back, making the SCOTUS into a joke, since there is no "conservative" or "liberal" parts of it, so why is every judge one of those labels? It has been corrupt for hundreds of years, where criteria was political, not knowledge....
SOURCE URL: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/desperate-democrats-now-want-place-term-limits-supreme-court-justices/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ allosaur 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Years ago me dino stopped calling myself a Republican and contributing any $ to the GOP primarily because of spineless (later perceived as also corrupt) RINO behavior.
    That said, the traitorous Democrat Party is far worse and due partly due to TDS has gone bat out of hell completely crazy. The other part of "partly due" is what has become an insane wanton lust for absolute power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I just can't believe that the Democrats are as slimey or crooked (apparently from top to bottom) as they are! When I and the Democrat party parted ways, they were far more honest an at least showed a modicum of integrity and common sense! No more! The leadership in my estimation should all be doing hard time for high crimes and misdemeanors! In addition, a large swath or the rank & file, for aiding and abetting criminal activities (say! I'll bet those are grounds for wide-reaching RICO indictments and a thorough criminal investigation!)..... For what its worth!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The Congressional Democrats want to ignore the Constitution because they couldn't get all the states to agree on a Constitutional Convention. So, it's easier to just destroy the current form of representative government through legislation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Orwellian 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Would very much like to see a cognitive competency test for all federal elected and appointed officials each year. We need to rid our government of the dim bulbs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The funny thing is that they claim that this doesn't have to be passed as a Constitutional Amendment... Let's see this one end up with the Supreme Court - as the Plaintiffs! Man, can you imagine what a legal kerfuffle that would be!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    People are so short-sighted. If they successfully packed the court, they'd hate term limits. The politicization of it must go. I can still remember a time when we didn't want to admit to political litmus tests. I really want a fair, not partisan, court. It angers me that these clowns politicize it b/c it works for their careers, without regard for what it does to the country. I wish they would get together in private, pick a qualified non-political appointee, and then confirm her in a non-partisan process. It sounds like a dream, but we've done it before. It's certainly possible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I fail to see how anything with the demonrats is possible after the last three years, or did you go into isolation with COVID? They have been pursuing a coup for three years, and made about a dozen attempts using false information presented as true, and then when confronted up front, Felony Pelosi has alawys said "NO" to any discussions or deals. The only way this will ever happen is for a complete destruction of the demonrat party and a full rebuild, just as has been happening with Republicrats. Haven't you noticed how many Republicrats did not run again in 2018? There was a purge of the RINO population in the last three years, and many were replaced with real patriots like Dan Crenshaw, who have served the country and are trying to serve it now.

      "I can still remember a time when we didn't want to admit to political litmus tests." So, it is ok to have such tests, as long as you admit to them?

      Think of this: it is ILLEGAL to use religion as a basis of qualification for any office. Yet both sides have been doing it for over 40 years just on the abortion thing.

      Think about this too: If the abortion thing is so important to either side, why has it not been done the Constitutional way and proposed as an amendment to the Bill of rights or Constitution, vice making laws with no basis in either, and then asking the court whose job it is to use both documents as guides, to rule on it? Even race is addressed in the Constitutional law package. Yet both parties have made law and counterlaws to fight their war on the American people. Creating the legalistic charade that exists where they can do anything to us, and find some convenient "law" that supports it.

      Packing the Court is just another attempt to ram their agenda down the peoples throats. If they are so sure they know what we want, then do it the right way and add it into either document, otherwise, they need to all shut up and go away, which will never happen till they are all in jail.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rainman0720 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        If they lose the Supreme Court, they lose the only way they have to--as you correctly put it--ram their agenda down our throats. They can't get their crappy legislation passed, so they simply muck the issue up until it hits the Supreme Court. But with five solid conservatives in place, Roberts can no longer rewrite legislation and then declare it constitutional.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          It goes deeper than this, since they own specific Judges and courts. Look at the Flynn case for a clear example of how far they will trample the individual for their agenda.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Yes, but... the abortion thing is all about religion. There is no other basis for the issue.

        SCOTUS Legislating is THE problem, on both sides. On one side there is almost only abortion. On the other there is ... everything else!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          For me the abortion thing has no religious or mystical element.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            Me either.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Be that as it may, it is still the primary driver in the dissension we see. We cannot apply our personal views to the debate or it will be skewed. Have to look at the group think going on.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                Sorry for my short drive-by statement above, but I was in the waiting room of the oral surgeon and suddenly had to cut short my attempted input above.

                Anyway, I wish to add I disagree with willy-nilly abortion on demand. I think labeling the natural gestation period of our species a "parasite" or "rights violation" is absurd. Nothing religious or mystical about it. I figure a civilized people holds the life of all its members in high esteem and doesn't extinguish that on a whim, even if that life is going through the natural gestation period. Some may create "rules" about when that life is allowed to be called human, but they are just opinions. If there is an error involved in any decision, I figure the only way to be sure, to be safe, is to err the side of protecting life itself. Don't need religion to do that. Could there be rare exceptions? Sure, but be very careful on how they are addressed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Thor, I hate to differ, but it goes beyond religion, to morals. I am not a religious person, and I believe the use of abortion as birth control is wrong. Now, I would not impose that on others, as i also believe in personal responsibility, so they can decide to do it or not and bear the consequences. BUT, that said, I believe any abortion past the first trimester should be treated as murder, and I would support a law to that extent. Even my wife, who is not liberal but does support a womans right to choose, agrees wit that definition. Demonrats have created the fiction of "religion". If it is about religion, then Joe Biden must be against it, because he claims to be an active Catholic. So, he is a hypocrite.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            Hey Nick! Are you saying 'all abortion is wrong?' What about a lady who contracts German measles while pregnant (very early in pregnancy). Doctor recommends abortion. Devastated lady! My BFF. Never got over it. Another friend, Colonel in the Air Force...his wife same thing. He, however, had two older sons both became doctors and they promised always to care for their blind, deaf, and dumb sister.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              No, I am not. I am saying that Thors position is one I do not agree with. He views all unborn as parasites, and I subscribe to the point where it is a human. Because I am not all knowing, I cannot say where it begins. Because I am not a woman, I would not say yea or nay to an abortion. I would legislate anything after first trimester as murder, especially the abomination of post birth abortion as practiced in NY. Anything to save a mothers life, or to ensure the baby's health is permitted already, but even then it has the same problems, only the individual and her partner can decide. Because of the intensely personal nature of the topic, I am glad I do not legislate, because any legislation on the subject beyond the post birth ban is fraught with issues , because the initial premise of whose responsibility is it, and how do they get enough information to make a critical decision. For instance, how can a 19yo girl who screams Trump is a Racist when it is demonstrably not true, be trusted to decide on an abortion?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by brucejc04 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                Clearly a human fetus is NOT a parasite! Look it up in a dictionary. A parasite is defined as from a different species! The real issue here is a woman's Gross Personal Irresponsibility by consenting to sex while not insuring that she is protected from a pregnancy by using any of over 20 methods. In the case where she does get pregnant but does not want the child she should arrange for a fetal transplant to a woman who desires a child but cannot become pregnant or give birth and put the child up for adoption. Abortion is MURDER!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  You are going to have to defend these assertions:
                  1. Woman's responsibility to ensure protection (vs man's). What about rape?
                  2. Fetal transplant, forced on the woman because?
                  3. Demonstrate that abortion is murder.

                  3 days after ovulation, the embryo ball is ~16 cells. 16 cells is NOT a human. It is not until two weeks later there is any semblance of a heart or brain. This is still not a human.

                  We are going to argue and argue, and then we are going to find out...you have a religious basis for arguing conception is the beginning of life, and we are going to agree to disagree. However, a religious basis for beginning of life has NO PLACE in legislation, just like not eating pork or women wearing stupid clothes.

                  However, I'm so happy you offered the definition of parasite. Now we all know that people camping on welfare and nursing government jobs are no parasites. Whew! I always thought they were.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by brucejc04 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    First off, I am not a religious person and religion plays no part in my positions.
                    !. It is her body she has to protect. Rape is an exception as she has no ability to protect herself.
                    2. Fetal transplant is not forced, one of several options, and probably less impact-full, physical and emotional, than abortion to the woman.
                    3. A fetus is human and alive, To abort is murder!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      Like I said...#3 needs defense. Arguments do not stand on hollow statements. Defend that a fetus is human life. Start with 16 cells, please.

                      If abortion is murder, then how does rape justify murder of a third party innocent of the rape?

                      If a fetal transplant is not forced, then carrying to term and abortion are the other options. If you force transplant or full-term, then it is force. Using force against a person requires SIGNIFICANT justification. You can start by explaining how 16 cells is a human that is murdered if they are destroyed, and if justifies FORCING a woman against her will.

                      16 cells. I'm waiting, and I still bet it comes down to religion.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        Murder:

                        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...

                        2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
                        1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

                        The who debate is summed up here in definition 1. What is the meaning of "unlawfully" ? It can be moral, or religious, or legal law. This has been the whole argument for the last 100 years, whose law? Gods, satans or mans? Like it or not, there are a lot of people who believe in the Judeo Christian (and hence American foundational law) that "Thou shall not kill". Of course that does all fall apart with exceptions for food protection, survival, etc. So we get into this endless circle of arguments. But killing a baby post birth, and calling it lawful (New York) is an abomination and murder that I would hope anyone can debate at that point it is a human being.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                          Homie, you and I have had this discussion, and agreed to disagree. If you want to start again, ok. I was waiting for a new defense from Mr. "I just say it and it is so".

                          BTW, the assertion needing support is showing that 16 cells is a human, not that killing a human is murder. I scratched a nasty bug bite this am, and killed several hundred, perhaps a thousand cells with my own DNA. Was that suicide?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                            Of course not, the cells were not organized into a cohesive unit. I was adding that the reason we will never get to a clear decision is because we have 3 different levels of "law", maybe more. So when one "unlawful" is negated by political and money, they still have a few more to fight. That, I do not believe , will ever change. So, even if Trumps court change the law (which they won't the whole point is to NOT have a SCOTUS doing that cra), but can rule some laws unconstitutional, the demonrats will come back with thousands of local laws to overwhelm it, until they can pack the court again. Tit for tat. Someday it may settle down to 1st trimester, which seemed to be a neutral ground for a while till the demand for baby parts picked up in China, then the floodgates opened, and we ended up with NY killing infants. I agree we are at 2 ends of the debate here, but there are some other aspects we never really discussed. bruces logic seems a bit off, 1 and 2 seemed to justify, 3 rejects, so they did not track. I was just adding that murder has the little added definer "unlawful", and it comes to mind, "whos law?".
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            I know you position, we shouldn't repeat this discussion we've had 20 times.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Well, it does always have added facets, I don't think we ever heard your opinion on the post birth abortion, I am interested to see how that fits into the debate. Also in the guise of this discussion, why would her religion have a damn thing to do with her qualifications? There can be no religious test for office, that has been brought up a gazzilion times in the last 4 years, and the demonrats just keep at it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                I haven't really thought through post-birth abortion, but I am much more callous on the subject than most. Maintaining the life of a being that can not ever support themselves is wasteful and silly, unless someone wants a project. I got into a fight in Jr High School because I said to a guy who was being a pain, "You are 16 years old and your mother is still trying to get an abortion". He was an idiot, and thought I was making a slight at his mother. Unfortunately he was both stupid, and body/mind not as tough as his tongue.

                I agree with respect to religion being separate and irrelevant from interview for office ...
                ... except that some choose to legislate from the bench using their religion as a position. Abortion if the key issue affected today.

                Antone Scalia was religious, but he set that aside, and took a strict Constitutional view when he voted. He was great. Gorsuch is similarly excellent, having sided with liberals on some Constitutional issues. Others, less so. No good answer for how to deal with that bias, other than just ask a question about how one would vote...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Good luck to that! We are so far down the rabbit hole of corruption in government, we may never see justice or integrity ever again! The founders knew exactly what would happen if there was to become a aristocratic elite (such as infests Washington today). I can cite chapter and verse where the Justice system has been packed with incompetents who couldn't dispense real justice if their sorry lives depended on it! Its all politics! The 3rd district court for example is worse than the 9th district even was. Total inability to perform as they are expected to by honest citizens, and again it is who you pander to and not what you know or your ability to demonstrate even a little integrity. It definitely seems to be a fixed game where justice and the Constitution are the losers!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        "The founders knew exactly what would happen if there was to become a aristocratic elite"
        I wonder if there's just no way to have a distant central gov't that takes over a quarter of your income and has vast powers and have it run well. I thought, maybe naively, that we had a good court system. It's just the gov't has its hands in so much.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Look at what they take and why, SS and Medicare eats 10-15%, fed taxes another 10-15%, then state taxes 10% or more, heavan help thoses in sales tax states withincome tax like NY. It is not just the feds, the states rip us off too. Usually the worst is in a demonrat run state like Oregon, NJ and NY. In Oregon we don't even have a sales tax, but there are so many other rip off schemes like 2 billion in "carbon offset fees" for BS fantasy science called "Man Made Global Warming" and for which none of it will ever be used. It's not just a distant govt, its next door.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      True.

      The problem is that one side of SCOTUS is interpreting the Constitution. The other side is Legislating from the bench. The Constitution as a "living document" is fundamentally flawed. If all the justices were just trying to be fair, impartial and reading the law as written, abortion would be legal (since there is no basis against it that is not religious), and many ridiculous present and planned firearm laws would be struck down by the Second Amendment. Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I agree with most of what you said however, there is a misconception as to what the term "living document" really meant. It meant that the founders in their infinite wisdom provided the tools for changing the Constitution such as the Article V Convention of States that was designed to take back some control from an out of control federal legislature. For instance, no one in Congress wants to put in Term Limits for obvious reasons (they are now a part of an aristocracy) specifically giving up their perks and control over "We the people".

        As for Justice (seems to be it is becoming something of a joke), the Democrats philosophy is that if you can change the laws of the land by Constitutional means, then you must do it from the bench (totally outside of the Constitutional limits). Interpreting the law as opposed to making law without the mandate of the people, is a theft of our democracy and a death knell of the Republic. Dems (sorry for being so partisan) have embraced that approach to seizing power via any means necessary. That is the reason that FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court (and failed for the most part) and that is why the modern day dems (who have seen their power severely crippled of late) are trying to do the things they are including their aversion to the Constitution and the protections our people are entitled to.

        This is also the reason that this upcoming (and possibly the last democratically held) election is so important on many philosophical and legal levels. There are people who were never taught the intricacies and wisdom that went into the drafting our that great document, only the propaganda that is designed to take away whatever freedoms we now enjoy! Vote wisely and be well!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Oh, we are totally aligned. I agree. I can not believe that there are open documents describing Judicial Interpretation and the absurd version of "living document", meaning as interpreted, not amended.

          It is an unbelievable position. They would not support this same approach if the interpretation went the other way, but we are on the brink of a totalitarian mess.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        "abortion would be legal (since there is no basis against it that is not religious),"
        I do not understand the details of the Constitutional arguments, but I never understood why the issue must come down to religion or what it has to do with privacy. In my non-expert view there is a non-religious argument that fetus has some properties that give it interests that must be protected by law. If we don't have incubator technology to keep the fetus alive, though, then we have to use gov't force on the mother to protect the fetus' rights (assuming the fetus has them, which I know is debated). These rights come into conflict if the mother wants the fetus removed, wants a medical treatment that would possibly harm the fetus, wants to do a job or other activity that puts the fetus at risk, or even wants to ignore a doctor's recommendation of bed rest. It seems like the rights are in conflict, and I err on not having government use force. I am ignorant of the details of how the Constitution and existing case law interact with this difficult issue.

        " Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?"
        Yes. If we followed it according to my lay reading of it, the fed gov't would be much more limited.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          It comes down to religion because religion is the only basis of arguing that 32 cells is a human being or have rights.

          ... and religion has no place in legislation, or in this case the "interpretation" of legislation. Even Scalia understood this.

          I kill more than 32 cells every time I play soccer. We kill smarter, more self-aware things every time we swat a mosquito. We kill immeasurably smarter and more self-aware things every time we euthanize a dog, which we do for convenience much of the time, with an justification that the animal was suffering...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by brucejc04 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        (since there is no basis against it that is not religious) Not So! A fetus is a living human and abortion is murder! Has nothing to do with religion!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Human being? More like a parasite.

          The assertion that 2, 8 or any reasonable 2^n number of cells is a human life is indefensible. It is not self aware (My dog has more to give up). It can not survive without 100% support from another human. Two cells are a human, nope. Not a chance.

          The only way forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted birth makes ethical sense is a contract. Where she is paid for her efforts (time, inconvenience, health damage, lost wages, etc.) AND another agreed to take custody and fully support the child. Even then, it should be her choice. She is the only “Contributor” affected.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            " forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted birth makes ethical sense is a contract."
            Then it really wouldn't be force. It's a mutually beneficial agreement. If you contract to build a building but decide you don't want to, the court tries to make everyone whole. They get the buyer's money back plus any damages from the builder flaking out. They don't crack a whip and force the builder to work. (I know you are not supporting gov't force.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              I wonder who would pay the costs of such a "contract"?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                Great question.

                Obviously not the mother. Hopefully not me. We have more than enough total people in the world, perhaps too many already.

                Maybe this is a place Religious Republicans press for more taxes, both to pay for carrying the child to term, child birth, and raising them. They could set up a disciplined structure to bring the child up in that increases their number, and they can counter the immense growth in the welfare-left population.Make sure the bill include the words: private institutions, disciplined and responsible so future administrations don't use it like LBJ.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo