Desperate DEMOCRATS in the news

[ExpressLane]

Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.

No President should turn 80 during their term as President. Would be a good start.

[Legion]

No President should turn 80 during their term as President. Would be a good start.

How old is Slow Joe?

[Nordberg]

I reserve the right to express myself freely within the rules.

We reserve the right to judge you are an immature child who does not understand debate or people. You should not be defending that, but apologizing for it

[Grokmaster]

Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.

YEAH..SHOULD HAVE KICKED OUT GINSBURG YEARS AGO..NEXT OLDEST...BREYER...YEAH, KICK HIS ASS OUT , TOO.......

[canceled.2021.3]

Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices "during good behavior." This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.

The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.

While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_3/ALDE_00000686/

The democrat party is proposing term limits for Supreme Court Justices

Hilarious.

Soon you will see JPP leftists talk about it like it is the greatest idea ever.

Wouldn’t be surprised if we see an OP ED in Bezos rag the Washington Post saying lifetime appointments to the courts are antiquated.

[martin]

I reserve the right to express myself freely within the rules.

As does everyone. Freedom to be an oaf isn't a mandate.

[CFM]

Good thread.

The Constitution does not establish lifetime terms but states only that judges serve "during good behavior". This is not necessarily lifetime appointment language, and both conservative (The Federalist Society) and liberal think tanks have argued that it shouldn't be so interpreted. From the linked article:

"Turning to the language of Article III of the Constitution, Greene explained that the document says only that justices shall retain their posts “during good behavior.” That phrase has been traditionally read to require life tenure. Greene suggested that term limits, however, would not violate the Constitution if any statute made clear that justices may be removed from office during their 18-year terms only for violating 'good behavior.'"

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/e...t-term-limits/

While the Constitution doesn't use the term "lifetime appointment", as long as the judge/justice exhibits good behavior, they can stay until they retire or die. Some have retired and others have died.

Unless the Constitution is amended, placing a time limit would violate the Constitution unless Greene can explain how someone can be removed at say 18 years if they're still behaving "good".

[Legion]

Freedom to be an oaf isn't a mandate.

Indeed, and that's why I don't identify as a leftist.

[Legion]

The democrat party is proposing term limits for Supreme Court Justices

Hilarious.

Soon you will see JPP leftists talk about it like it is the greatest idea ever.

Wouldn’t be surprised if we see an OP ED in Bezos rag the Washington Post saying lifetime appointments to the courts are antiquated.

Isn't the Constitution (or, at least the parts leftists don't like) supposed to be antiquated?

[Truth Detector]

Good thread.

The Constitution does not establish lifetime terms but states only that judges serve "during good behavior". This is not necessarily lifetime appointment language, and both conservative (The Federalist Society) and liberal think tanks have argued that it shouldn't be so interpreted. From the linked article:

"Turning to the language of Article III of the Constitution, Greene explained that the document says only that justices shall retain their posts “during good behavior.” That phrase has been traditionally read to require life tenure. Greene suggested that term limits, however, would not violate the Constitution if any statute made clear that justices may be removed from office during their 18-year terms only for violating 'good behavior.'"

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/e...t-term-limits/

Educate yourself: The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch.

The express and implicit separation of the Supreme Court from the other branches of Government is therefore upheld. In accordance with the principle of providing checks and balances, the executive and legislative branches exercise control over the Supreme Court by, respectively, proposing and approving candidates for that body.

[Truth Detector]

Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.

Educate yourself: The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch.

The express and implicit separation of the Supreme Court from the other branches of Government is therefore upheld. In accordance with the principle of providing checks and balances, the executive and legislative branches exercise control over the Supreme Court by, respectively, proposing and approving candidates for that body.

[Truth Detector]

You didn't say that while your beloved RBG was still above ground, did you, imbecile?

She really is dumber than a box of rocks.

[Truth Detector]

The problem as always is interpreting the language. The words "during good behavior" seem to specify only conditions under which judges may be forcibly removed, but this might be during either lifetime or shorter terms as set by Congress. Here the problem of interpretation has a special wrinkle in that the ultimate interpreters will be the currently lifetime serving judges on the SC themselves.

There is no problem with interpreting. It's quite plain and simple. They are nominated for lifetime appointments. I don't know how anyone can read anything else into it other than dishonest leftist hacks with a Fascistic agenda.

[Truth Detector]

Excuse the question but I'm curious, do you think closing your post with, "did you, imbecile?", adds force to the logic of your response or are you merely an imbecile yourself? Thanks.

Don't bloviate like a dishonest imbecile and you won't get called one.

[Phantasmal]

Educate yourself: The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch.

The express and implicit separation of the Supreme Court from the other branches of Government is therefore upheld. In accordance with the principle of providing checks and balances, the executive and legislative branches exercise control over the Supreme Court by, respectively, proposing and approving candidates for that body.

It’s still time we had term limits. Your post does nothing to change that fact.