There is a cool little slider that you can use to see who this effects.

http://time.com/4578718/donald-trump-ter...-congress/

Pipe dream..Im afraid.

Twelve years max in both houses would be ideal.

(11-28-2016 11:48 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Twelve years max in both houses would be ideal.

Agreed. 12 is the magic number. For President and Supreme Court too.

I'm not against term limits, per se.

I'm just wondering: what is the problem being solved, here??


Not like people aren't voting the person back into the office, each time.

Is it proven that the longer the person stays in office, the less effective he/she is??

(11-28-2016 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm not against term limits, per se.

I'm just wondering: what is the problem being solved, here??

(11-28-2016 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not like people aren't voting the person back into the office, each time.

Incumbents push opponents from their own parties out. DNC pushing Bernie out is a an example, if you think it doesn't happen at the congressional level, you are one blind bat.

(11-28-2016 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Is it proven that the longer the person stays in office, the less effective he/she is??

See first pic

Should be a long, yet definite term for federal judges as well. This lifetime appointment stuff is as silly as Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid getting rich from a lifetime in public service.

So you're saying that, by far and wide and across most of the country, this is what's happening:

- guy gets elected
- people in that district/state want to vote for the guy's party, and won't vote for a candidate of the other party regardless how bad a job that guy is doing
- guy can prevent any challenge from within party


I don't think so.

(11-28-2016 12:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So you're saying that, by far and wide and across most of the country, this is what's happening:

- guy gets elected
- people in that district/state want to vote for the guy's party, and won't vote for a candidate of the other party regardless how bad a job that guy is doing
- guy can prevent any challenge from within party


I don't think so.

Blind as a bat. see:gerrymandering

If only 15% of a district approve of the job the guy is doing, but then they vote for him ... what does that say about the people in the district??

(11-28-2016 11:51 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Agreed. 12 is the magic number. For President and Supreme Court too.

Can't really have term limits on the Supreme Court. The ability to never remove a justice, and a lifetime appointment, is about the only thing that maintains the separation of powers, and gives the court anything close to equal power. You simply cannot have the justices in constant dependence of pleasing the president, and not enough time to later establish their own power.

Congress is a different animal. I sort of like the lack of term limits, as it allows for people who've been there and done that to still be around. Maybe an age limit, so we don't have Strohm Thurmond Situations of a guy who is almost 100, and shitting himself, being wheeled in to ceremoniously cast votes when he doesn't even know where he is. But as it's not an executive position, I see no problem with people being able to serve for 30 years. However I am not unilaterally opposed to term limits. I just don't think they are really needed for the most part.

(11-28-2016 12:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Can't really have term limits on the Supreme Court. The ability to never remove a justice, and a lifetime appointment, is about the only thing that maintains the separation of powers, and gives the court anything close to equal power. You simply cannot have the justices in constant dependence of pleasing the president, and not enough time to later establish their own power.

Congress is a different animal. I sort of like the lack of term limits, as it allows for people who've been there and done that to still be around. Maybe an age limit, so we don't have Strohm Thurmond Situations of a guy who is almost 100, and shitting himself, being wheeled in to ceremoniously cast votes when he doesn't even know where he is. But as it's not an executive position, I see no problem with people being able to serve for 30 years. However I am not unilaterally opposed to term limits. I just don't think they are really needed for the most part.

I agree with pretty much your whole post.

But just to nit-pick ... why is it not solely that the POTUS can't remove a justice, maintaining the separation?

Everyone wants term limits and everyone hates Congress but everyone votes their Critter back into office.

(11-28-2016 12:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 11:51 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Agreed. 12 is the magic number. For President and Supreme Court too.

Can't really have term limits on the Supreme Court. The ability to never remove a justice, and a lifetime appointment, is about the only thing that maintains the separation of powers, and gives the court anything close to equal power. You simply cannot have the justices in constant dependence of pleasing the president, and not enough time to later establish their own power.

Congress is a different animal. I sort of like the lack of term limits, as it allows for people who've been there and done that to still be around. Maybe an age limit, so we don't have Strohm Thurmond Situations of a guy who is almost 100, and shitting himself, being wheeled in to ceremoniously cast votes when he doesn't even know where he is. But as it's not an executive position, I see no problem with people being able to serve for 30 years. However I am not unilaterally opposed to term limits. I just don't think they are really needed for the most part.

Not pleasing the president. One 12 year term. Another place for folks who get term limited in other branches. They stay way too long.

I just can't imagine that if you've been at 'the same job' for 20 years that your heart is still in it. You've either become calloused because you get essentially the same pay as someone in their first term, or you're letting underlings do all your work and all you're doing is collecting speaking fees. I'm sure such a dedicated person exists SOMEWHERE, but I suspect the latter is far more common.

These things become 'machines' that serve themselves. I'd be just as comfortable with the popularoutgoing person naming their 'chief of staff' as their heir apparent. If they work for themselves (special interests) in their final term, they probably sabotage their heir's election.... crappy legacy. If instead they work for the people, they likely assure their legacy.

This is something that most of America wants but we will never get. Unless Trump is the real deal.

(11-28-2016 12:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If only 15% of a district approve of the job the guy is doing, but then they vote for him ... what does that say about the people in the district??

They have no other realistic options

(11-28-2016 01:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I agree with pretty much your whole post.

But just to nit-pick ... why is it not solely that the POTUS can't remove a justice, maintaining the separation?

Because then you give congress power over the Supreme Court, whose job really is to sort of keep them in line on behalf of the people. they can actually be impeached by congress, just like the President, but that has enough safety valves to keep it from being a political tool.

(11-28-2016 01:15 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Not pleasing the president. One 12 year term. Another place for folks who get term limited in other branches. They stay way too long.

You would make them subservient to the President (and congress) because you essentially have at any given point, 1/3 to 1/2 of them owing their jobs to the person in office. If they have term limits, then they have to think about their next job, the job after the Supreme Court. That can give someone power over them, since in their last few years, the President or those high up in congress, can either really help them get their next job, or really be a problem.

You just can't make the highest court judges subject to that, and expect them to maintain their power in regards to the other two. I think that might apply to a lesser extent in congress. That a term limit, and when you become a lame duck, you can become indebted to those who will be around after, who can influence your next job. If you have no term limit, that only happens if the people chose to remove you. But again I am less against term limits in congress. I can see the issues with them. I just don't think they are needed, and I think the positives of having a guy like John McCain there for 30 years, who can help navigate away from past mistakes made by mast legislatures, is a bigger positive. But you can't have them on the Supreme Court.

(11-28-2016 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just can't imagine that if you've been at 'the same job' for 20 years that your heart is still in it.

Why wouldn't they vote the guy out, when they see that this has happened?

(11-28-2016 01:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They have no other realistic options

Why will good options magically appear once the incumbent leaves?

(11-28-2016 01:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Because then you give congress power over the Supreme Court, whose job really is to sort of keep them in line on behalf of the people. they can actually be impeached by congress, just like the President, but that has enough safety valves to keep it from being a political tool.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm saying I still don't understand why lifetime appointment is the thing that enables this.

Or perhaps, what if it was a limited term where they could not be impeached except by a 60 vote senate (so basically, has to really screw up)?