Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Aeronca 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    If Congress passes a law for term limits for Justices, can't Justices declare it unconstitutional, protecting their own jobs? This is almost funny if not sad.

    Celebrity Deathmatch!
    The Senators vs. The Supremes!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      That's the whole thing. The Constitution clearly states that Judges are appointed to serve "during good Behavior" - see Article III, Section II. This is generally interpreted to be a lifetime charter subject only to Impeachment.

      Personally, I'd love to see Clarence Thomas duke it out with Jerry Nadler on a chessboard. I think that would Pay-Per-View gold! Of course, I'd also like to see Ted Cruz take on Sonia Sotomayor in similar fashion. She was so unqualified to sit on the Bench that the American Bar Association had to invent a new category for her since she failed to even pass the minimally "qualified" category. (Nearly all Supreme Court nominees rate "highly qualified.")
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    I don't see any SCOTUS decisions that endanger the republic, at least recently. The decision on Roe vs Wade reflected the opinion of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that it was on thin constitutional ice to begin with, and that it would have been better to let the issue evolve at the state level.

    The decision that pointed out the EPA overreach, usurping congressional authority to invoke regulatory restrictions without foundation on a legislative basis has yet to be recognized as the hammer it is. That ruling should be the basis for denying any number of executive agencies in the government the dictatorial powers they've assumed, in violation of the Constitution.

    The ruling against the restrictions on gun ownership and the right of self protection in the state of New York was a clear defense of the 2nd amendment (one which may become even more important if the wheels come off the national wagon).

    The only ruling I was disappointed in recently was the persistent defense of Obamacare. I suppose that has its roots in the Chief Justice Roberts original decision to find a way not to declare it unconstitutional.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Our founding fathers did everything in their powers to protect us from ourselves!
    There are so many things today that go in direct opposition of the Constitution yet we have a SCOTUS that seems unable to read and follow explicit laws, rules and instructions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 weeks, 3 days ago
    They just don't get, don't want to get or don't want you to get, that the Law is EXACTLY as written and that is the only job of the SCOTUS is to judge according to what is WRITTEN in the Law!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Frankly, I fail to understand what is wrong or deficient with life in accordance with the constitution.

    It seems to me that social justice, no cash bail, fairness, and progressive paradise are all made up contracts. They're fairy tales, or participation trophies for people who believe in Robin hood. The truth is even in Robin hoods day the rich avoided being robbed and continued to get rich because he knew how.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Happily they can be impeached.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      When people get past a certain age (or uncertain age; it differs from individual to individual), sometimes they get senile; that is not an issue of behaving badly. I think maybe there should be a Constitutional Amendment for Supreme Court Justices to serve terms; long terms; about 2 or 3 times as long as a Presidential term; maybe 12 years or so. Also , in such an Amendment, there should be a certain maximum of Justices at a time; they should be limited to 9 at a time; so nobody could "pack" the Court, as FDR tried to do.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    I hadn't thought of that but you do have a good point. Actually it would probably take an Amendment to the Constitution to put in term limits for the Supremes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      To be technical, Justices only serve one term, it's just a lifetime term. ;) I believe that the Bill the Democrats brought forward establishes four-year rolling terms during which the oldest justices are "retired" unless the number of Justices falls back below Nine. It is a blatantly political scheme designed to get Alito and Thomas off the Bench.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo