Originally posted by USUC
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
President Trump: Making America Great Again...
Collapse
X
-
It's an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It's a partisan political ploy. If this were to pass and the 18 year limit instituted, the court would immediately flip to a 6-3 democratic appointed court. Funny coincidence that.Originally posted by Maximus View Post
How is scotus term l imits detrimental to the country.
Comment
-
There would probably be something written in it to delay the implementation for justices already there. Seriously doubt they would immediately yank anyone.Originally posted by USUC View Post
It's an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It's a partisan political ploy. If this were to pass and the 18 year limit instituted, the court would immediately flip to a 6-3 democratic appointed court. Funny coincidence that.
Comment
-
Exactly. Just start with term limits going forward.Originally posted by BlueK View Post
There would probably be something written in it to delay the implementation for justices already there. Seriously doubt they would immediately yank anyone."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Doesn't make it any better. First off, it's most likely unconstitutional and would need a conditional amendment. But it's just another tactic to erode trust in the SCOTUS because for the first time in several decades it isn't a liberal court. Favorability of the court has gone down, but most of this is with the democratic base. The attacks are pernicious. Outside of a few Flashpoint issues, the justices agree with each other the majority of the times. There are several areas of overlap between them. Giving the president and congress greater control over the court is ludicrous.Originally posted by BlueK View Post
There would probably be something written in it to delay the implementation for justices already there. Seriously doubt they would immediately yank anyone.
Comment
-
Preach.Originally posted by USUC View Post
Doesn't make it any better. First off, it's most likely unconstitutional and would need a conditional amendment. But it's just another tactic to erode trust in the SCOTUS because for the first time in several decades it isn't a liberal court. Favorability of the court has gone down, but most of this is with the democratic base. The attacks are pernicious. Outside of a few Flashpoint issues, the justices agree with each other the majority of the times. There are several areas of overlap between them. Giving the president and congress greater control over the court is ludicrous."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Had to go back a page to see what you agreed with.Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."
Comment
-
Watching the Democrat Party seek to undermine the legitimacy of every institution that fails to agree with them isn't the only reason Frank Ryan struggles to convince me he is deeply concerned about protecting American Democracy and governing institutions but it is a big one.Originally posted by USUC View Post
Doesn't make it any better. First off, it's most likely unconstitutional and would need a conditional amendment. But it's just another tactic to erode trust in the SCOTUS because for the first time in several decades it isn't a liberal court. Favorability of the court has gone down, but most of this is with the democratic base. The attacks are pernicious. Outside of a few Flashpoint issues, the justices agree with each other the majority of the times. There are several areas of overlap between them. Giving the president and congress greater control over the court is ludicrous.Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
-General George S. Patton
I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
-DOCTOR Wuap
Comment
-
Honestly I don't understand why term limits wouldn't help both parties. At some point there will be a liberal majority on the SCOTUS, and you can bet that conservatives will be born again term limits supporters.Originally posted by USUC View Post
Doesn't make it any better. First off, it's most likely unconstitutional and would need a conditional amendment. But it's just another tactic to erode trust in the SCOTUS because for the first time in several decades it isn't a liberal court. Favorability of the court has gone down, but most of this is with the democratic base. The attacks are pernicious. Outside of a few Flashpoint issues, the justices agree with each other the majority of the times. There are several areas of overlap between them. Giving the president and congress greater control over the court is ludicrous.
One wonders how so many other democracies around the world deal with supreme court justices who aren't lifers."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Isnt it fair to criticize the SCOTUS for deligimatizing itself, when members are getting extravogant gifts, overturning 60 years of precident on extremely partisan issues, being involved in trying to overturn elections, etc.Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
Watching the Democrat Party seek to undermine the legitimacy of every institution that fails to agree with them isn't the only reason Frank Ryan struggles to convince me he is deeply concerned about protecting American Democracy and governing institutions but it is a big one.
Comment
-
Stop being pernicious. Those are just a few flashpoint issues!Originally posted by Maximus View Post
Isnt it fair to criticize the SCOTUS for deligimatizing itself, when members are getting extravogant gifts, overturning 60 years of precident on extremely partisan issues, being involved in trying to overturn elections, etc.
Comment
-
Napper, you can disagree with me but you don't have to doubt my sincerity. I don't mind talking about or debating things I actually post but I do very much believe the things I say. That's a weird way to dismiss my opinion.
My cynicism when it comes to MAGA has been vindicated more than a time or two.
Comment
-
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."
Comment
Comment