CSNbbs

(06-27-2016 07:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Perfect example of why justices should have a limited term. Something between 10 and 20 years. It should not be life. They get swept up in DC society and lose touch with where they came from.

Quote:In the front row, facing the marble temple, a young woman held up a homemade sign:

“Roses are red

Violets are blue

Abortion is legal

So f--- you.”

Classy.

(06-27-2016 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 07:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Perfect example of why justices should have a limited term. Something between 10 and 20 years. It should not be life. They get swept up in DC society and lose touch with where they came from.

wouldn't that make a court even more liberal?

The misdemeanor gun ban and the abortion decision will impact black and hispanics ten fold over whites, asians, indians etc.
More black babies were aborted in NY last year than live births. The gun ban is major low hanging fruit to lock "minorities"
back into jail. You can have a clean record for 10 years, women gets mad drops a dime to 911, back to jail. Celebrate libs celebrate.
You are killing and locking up your future voter base, lol

Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...?tid=a_inl

Apparently there is already a move towards term limits.

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

Ginsburg is in poor health. Not sure she doesn't fit the mentally impaired as described in the article I linked.

(06-27-2016 11:17 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

Ginsburg is in poor health. Not sure she doesn't fit the mentally impaired as described in the article I linked.

Wasn't She supposedly dying back when Bush was elected ?

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

I thought that story was rebuffed (in rather harsh words) by his wife as a bogus rumor.

(06-28-2016 06:07 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

I thought that story was rebuffed (in rather harsh words) by his wife as a bogus rumor.

Please tell me irony of a guy posting that with a wife of former President Predator as his avatar isn't lost on the room.

(06-27-2016 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 07:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Perfect example of why justices should have a limited term. Something between 10 and 20 years. It should not be life. They get swept up in DC society and lose touch with where they came from.

in premise, I 100% agree with this....

however, the problem with that is that changing that guard that way would lend to too many overturned decisions....

I would prefer a minimum age of 55 as a first step with a mandatory 75 limit as the stopping point.....if they die somewhere in between, so be it....

that's my crazy arse yammering posit....

(06-28-2016 06:13 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2016 06:07 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

I thought that story was rebuffed (in rather harsh words) by his wife as a bogus rumor.

Please tell me irony of a guy posting that with a wife of former President Predator as his avatar isn't lost on the room.

Bill isn't running and has been out of office for 16 years.

Thomas's wife did deny them, but that doesn't mean it's not true. The Washington Free Beacon isn't exactly a liberal rag.

Kennedy has been a very conservative Justice on economic issues over the years. He's lead the court on issues like corporate personhood, was key in citizen's united, sided with the conservatives (minus Roberts) in the big Obamacare case. He has, however, seemed to side with liberals on issues of personal liberty, particularly gay rights issues.

When you actually look at his breakdown of decisions over the years, Kennedy has been a very conservative justice. However, on a few decisions that social conservatives are very passionate about he has gone with the liberals on the court and so people think he's more liberal than he actually has been.

(06-27-2016 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2016 07:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Perfect example of why justices should have a limited term. Something between 10 and 20 years. It should not be life. They get swept up in DC society and lose touch with where they came from.

Everyone should have term limits. 12 years is a good number.

President 3 x 4 year terms
House 6 x 2 year terms
Senate 2 x 6 year terms
Justices 1 x 12 year term.

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Justice Predator I mean Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

It's actually work now that Scalia is gone.

(06-27-2016 10:52 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Word on the street is Clarence Thomas is considering retirement too.

Thomas has already shot that rumour down... I want to say it was in a NYT article, but don't remember, but he basically referred to it as wishful hopes of certain media personalities.


And NO .. TERM limits are a BAD IDEA for supreme court justices.. Should NEVER EVER NEVER happen. I do not want my SC justices beholden to various administrations or congresses.

We should follow the system laid out by our founding fathers...

wouldn't term limits make the SCOTUS more liberal?

(06-28-2016 10:17 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]We should follow the system laid out by our founding fathers...

The founding fathers never really intended for the SCOTUS to act the way it currently does. SCOTUS established the precedent of judicial review, a power that is not explicitly stated in the constitution but inferred. They never would have foreseen just how powerful the SCOTUS would become.