>BREAKING: Democrats introduce bill to impose term limits on the Supreme CourtExplain how this would be a bad thing. 18 year limits would mean that each presidential term would get two appointments. Also there wouldn't be 80 year olds making the decisions any more.
>>541642410Make it 25 (i.e one Generation) and I'd agree.
>>541642410Crazy that they didn't start with themselves. It's almost like they only want the opportunity to punish the other team with this rule.
>>541642410How about doing the same for congress, you fucks.
>>541642410How can the Senate control what the Judiaciary does?
>>541642410If judges are term limited, it would mean they wouldn't be set for life anymore and have no reason to be impartial. They'd make decisions based on politics so they can run for office or be appointed somewhere when their term is up
>>541642870So like they do now except we can't get rid of them easily?
>>541642410There's already term limits, it's called death.
>>541642870Which current SCOTUS justices are impartial, in your opinion?
>>541642410Oh and we'll consider term limits for Supreme Court when they push a bill for term limits on Congress. Congress wasn't meant to be a jew infested nursing home you know.
>>541642410We need to just mass purge democrats like pol pot- kill em all
>>541643009Hilariously the three Trump picked during his first term are probably the least partisan justices on the court. And sometimes Roberts. The rest are all shameless partisans.
>>541642949>So like they do now Except they don't. They vote based on ideology, but they're not being pressured politically. Trump's own appointed judges vote against him all the time and Dem judges side with Republicans sometimes too. Judges making a ruling you don't like is not an indictment on them or the system, they just disagree with you
>>541643009If your definition of impartiality means having no ideology whatsoever, then no judge anywhere in the world would fit your criteria
>>541642410i see one based NIGGER in that photograph
>>541643163Do they live in a vacuum?
>>541643271I didn't say that was my definition, use the definition you feel is appropriate and answer the questionWhich current SCOTUS justices are impartial, in your opinion?
>>541642410Fastest way to get rid of Jackson-Brown... That would take an Amendment, though, not a bill, wouldn't it?
>>541643289Nobody does but imagine how bad things would be if they had to curry political favour.
>>541642870This.
Pretty funny didn’t they have a dead bitch stuck in there on their side for like 2 years?
>>541642410thats insanely based and would fix a lot.so of course the republicans are going to be retarded goyim and strike this down because its the democrats doing it.then 4 years from now we'll go through this again but opposite, with republicans introducing it and democrats striking it down.its the same charade we do with the filibuster
>>541642410I support it if they also ban women from being justices.
>>541643009nigger brown wise latina scalia disciple turned traitor cuck roberts notsochadkavkagan is just the designated kike so she’s separate this is my genuine list
>>541643009>>541644150oh shit ARENT impartial
>>541642410>Pass bill>SCOTUS declares bill unconstitutional.
>>541642870>Acting like the judicial branch isn't already impartial to a foreign nation and sand cults in general
>>541642410lmao that they do the supreme court before senators.
>>541644229They would need a constitutional amendment to do that, which requires a 2/3 majority. Something they cannot do right now. If they can win that many seats in November, then they can try that.
How about an age limit on presidents? They already have a minimum age of 35, why not have a maximum age of 65?
>>541644210Would be incredibly based
>>541644420Because this isn't 1850Everyone ages differently and 70 is basically the new 50
>>541644420You know they won't limit themselves like that. The average age of the Dem leadership is 70+
>>541644210That's exactly how retarded this is
>>541644377It requires 2/3 in both houses, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree too. We're never getting another amendment.
>>541642611This and 10 year term limits for Congress and Senate.
>>541642410All government officials should have term limits, with the ability to extend them in a referendum in their constituency. That means that appointed positions can't be extended >>541644420Every citizen should pass a cognitive test in order to participate in electoral politics, be it running or voting.
>>541645455Intelligent people can still fuck up society. When they do it it, it is intentionally
>>541645748>t. a retard who would failcognitive test != IQ test
>>541642410the supreme court was always meant to be a slot machine, chud
>>541642410So in otherwards the Democrat party is a bunch of reactionaries.
>>541645152>10-year term limit for Senators.>One Senate term is 6 years.
>>541644522>70 is the new 50>Needs help opening a pdf >Also needs help learning how to use a new phone that is functionally indistinguishable from his old one
>>541645883You mean =/=
>>541642410Just so you know, in France it's 9 years.
>>541642410They can't. Congress has no power to impose term limits over other branches of government. It would require an amendment to the constitution.
>>541642737Because the legislature makes laws dipshit. The 3 branches aren't the same, they're equal only in the sense that all have distinct function and are necessary for government. But the legislature has always been the most powerful since they make laws, control money and have the ability to impeach anyone.>>541642870Very stupid. They aren't impartial anyway, and no such thing should exist. The idea that any government employee should be "independent" of the people is absurd. They're only independent in the sense that they aren't supposed to do each other's jobs and have distinct roles, not independent of consequences for bad behavior or doing improper things. This is something that's been brainwashed into people, this idea of "independence" from any accountability and it's awful, unconstitutional and immoral.>>541643163>They vote based on ideology, but they're not being pressured politically.This is nonsense. The switch in time to save nine brought us all the unconstitutional laws we're still dealing with. 18 years is way too long, you get 4-5 and another 4-5 years if reappointed. No one should ever exercise authority without responsibility.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine>>541644210They could try but wouldn't work, congress has constitutional authority to set judicial framework. The number of justices has changed over time.>>541644420We really should.
While it's unlikely that the north americans will ever un-fuck their states, putting in some more criteria for eligibility would do wonders. In particular your ancient presidents, if you implemented a hard upper age limit of 70 and you could not run for office past that would be beneficial!
>>541642410Is Mitch McConnell gonna vote?
>>541646353Still would require a good sized majority, something Dems do not have. Maybe if they get a majority this November.
>>541646353Bro. The Supreme Court will just say Congress is overstepping and strike it down.
>>541642410terrible. you'll make them even more vocal and radical to get attention.
>>541644522Doesn't matter. The president's ability to reason can degrade extremely fast and we're likely to find stronger candidates in the middle than the edges. The same could be said for the lower bound too, that 28 year olds can lead as well as 70 year olds and have stronger, less degraded brains.>>541645152There's a lot of things that would help us. Like allowing pres/reps to get recalled every 6 months to a year if they're doing terribly. When the US was created the president was much weaker, he didn't have world-ending nukes or sprawling bureaucracy.>>541646330>judges strike down law>congress defunds themIt's not a good idea for judges to challenge, and everyone would see it as a grab by the judiciary. It also would require the entire supreme court to recuse themselves since the law in question involves them.
>>541646493The reps are idiots for not doing this first. Congressional limits are super easy too, but they'll never do it to themselves. It would have been better if the constitution ordered a convention of states every 25 years or so to work on amending the constitution and address issues that the federal government ignored or made worse.
>>541646612Okay you're just stupid.
They’ve already started the doomsday clock added all those extra niggers
>>541642410Article III Section 1 says you're a midwit that doesn't know what he's talking about: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". In other words, "for life".
