620
Comments (35)
sorted by:
34
E-dantes 34 points ago +34 / -0

Uh, no. The founders wrote extensively about this being a bad idea.

9
Rawnold_Reagan 9 points ago +9 / -0

Jokes on you I can't read.

2
E-dantes 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not sure if serious......kek

20
ad_victoriam 20 points ago +20 / -0

This can't be real. Permanent appointments is in the Constitution (Article III Section 1, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour") and so only a constitutional amendment could add time limits.

16
Lamech_Slade 16 points ago +16 / -0

The useful idiots really believe we have a democracy and that 50.1% can change anything. So many people cannot comprehend that we are not a democracy and why that's a great thing.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
3
Modus_Pwninz 3 points ago +3 / -0

"If you can keep it."

-Ben Franklin

3
Gwoz8881 3 points ago +3 / -0

The bill gets around this by allowing the Supreme Court justice to go back to a federal judge level as a “senior judge”

18
PewPew_ThaDuK 18 points ago +18 / -0

Democrats are the onion lol

18
AnointedVisions 18 points ago +19 / -1

Dems know only 2 tactics:

1 - Change the rules in their own favor when they can't win

2 - Riot

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
15
ladypatriot_games 15 points ago +15 / -0

Try term limits for yourselves first.

4
GoopNIL 4 points ago +4 / -0

This.

1
quotahire 1 point ago +1 / -0

That

1
Sixty2ndAssassin 1 point ago +1 / -0

That again.

12
Ex-libtard 12 points ago +12 / -0

No, this was covered by the founders.

8
rlbigfish 8 points ago +8 / -0

I believe this is called "admitting defeat."

6
MustafaJones 6 points ago +6 / -0

“We don’t like the current president or his politics. Time to shred the constitution! ” - Dems.

5
sketchy_at_best 5 points ago +5 / -0

The law would obviously be unconstitutional - god damn people are dumb.

4
harrison_bergeron 4 points ago +4 / -0

How about they term limit themselves first?

4
AmericaFirstMAGA88 4 points ago +4 / -0

Let's get term limits for congressman first

1
Fireark 1 point ago +1 / -0

The number of shills in this post is staggering. Don't fall for Commie infiltrators, Pedes!

1
Wyopepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

30 year term limits in exchange for term limits for all of Congress.

I know it goes against the founders, but we are not getting master craftsman of public service anymore. We are getting life long losers such as Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, and many others like them.

I hate fiddling with it but it might be a decent trade off in this particular narrow case.

1
IForgotMyPw 1 point ago +1 / -0

This issue is one that is literally at the core of our foundation and principles. They are lifetime appointments for a reason.

-2
egregion -2 points ago +1 / -3

I support abolishing the court. It's become nothing more than 9 oligarchs making laws without checks or balances. If you don't like something take it up with the district you live in or write a letter to your governor about how he or she should nullify the law.

-3
uvontheterrible -3 points ago +2 / -5

I actually think justices should be limited to about 12 - 20 years. Appointment for life does not work well. You wind up with too many people hanging on long past a reasonable retirement age. Plus, if you wind up with a bum justice you're stuck with them for far too long.

8
Jimmy_Russler 8 points ago +8 / -0

The left only cared about term limits AFTER Trump got to pick supreme court judges. They didn't have a problem when that witch was in power.

2
uvontheterrible 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, I don't think their motives are pure. I think they recognize they have lost control of the court for a generation and this is their way to limit the damage.

2
BadManOrange 2 points ago +2 / -0

A mandatory retirement age makes more sense.

2
uvontheterrible 2 points ago +2 / -0

This could work too. Only problem with this is it would encourage Presidents to nominate younger and younger people which may not be the best.

-1
_____ -1 points ago +1 / -2

I'm fine with long appointments as law is something where experience is good. But force a retirement age at 75 or something.

Radical idea but I think there should be 29 justices. The system is kind of screwed at the moment with extreme power going into the hands of a few people who got picked at random points. We are so lucky that we got 3 SCOTUS in one Trump term. There is huge incentive to murder them (Scalia?) or blackmail them (Roberts on Epstein island) too.

If its 5-4 R-D nominated justices then it should be expanded to 16-13 R-D.

-8
Margeshrimpson -8 points ago +2 / -10

I kinda agree. When the construction was written. The average lifespan was 38. Make it 38 years I'd support that.

9
Muffinman 9 points ago +9 / -0

Thats a bit of a misnomer... as the infant mortality rate in late 1700s was extremely high, which offsets the overall life expectatancy.

One reason for large families in those days was the expectation that a couple of the children wouldn't survive childhood. One of the biggest advances in medicine is the reduction of the childhood mortality that plagued civilization pre-1950s....

If someone made it out of early childhood, they would be expected live into their mid-60s.

5
Ex-libtard 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is silly thinking. Statesmen regularly lived into their seventies. More people make it into older ages now, but that would have little effect in reasoning.

Its sorta like saying they couldnt have foreseen automated rifles and etc. Despire having the pickle gun, and the adult sense to conclude all machinery will improve.