United States FLASH: U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DEAD AT 87
- Thread starter LifeisTiresome
- Start date
I vote if they go for a third one, we call it Elevenses.
Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—In a landmark ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a close decision, the judges on the court have ruled RBG's death unconstitutional and will block Trump from nominating a replacement.
babylonbee.com
Are they trying to troll republicans?
I usually hear the right talking about term limits.
Is the right gonna be against them now?
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
They're getting desperate.
This just feels like them trying to change the rules of the game, because they weren't winning under the old rules.
I think there is widespread support for terms limits in Congress; in SCOTUS...no idea.
I'm very suspicious of the timing and motive behind this, as I'd never heard it put forth by anyone in mainstream politics before.
Oh lol so I'm kinda high on some edibles and didn't realize it was supreme court they're talking about, I was thinking congress
Nice, some Cheba Chews, or Dixie Elixers?
And yeah, with Congress term limits are actually rather popular across the political spectrum. With SCOTUS it's probably not widely supported, changing a very big part of our judicial system.
The cited reasoning is and method is interesting, it exempts current justices and instead only applies going forward, and it's being billed as effort to defuse tensions on the court.
It's also impossible, and it's stupid to try a stunt like this. SC tenure is governed by the constitution, congress lacks the authority to impose term limits on the court via legislation, it would have to be via a constitutional amendment, which this very explicitly is not.
If Khanna and his co-sponsors actually want to defuse tensions, that's an easy fix. They just need to accept that Roe needs to be reversed, and the question of abortion decided by elected representatives, IE, which is the way it always should have been handled.
Something inspired off of sour patch kids called Stoney Patch.
Back on topic, I'm not for term limits for supreme court. This is just a move because they're playing off voters panicking about a conservative Court.
Term limits for Congress might not be a bad idea at all, it would solve a lot of problems that come with career politicians.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
This would appear to be something that infringes on the constitution.
Now the constitution does not say that justices are appointed for life, rather it says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour "
Now good behavior isn't clearly defined but impeachment is so it would appear that saying a person can't continue to serve despite good behavior is a violation of the constitution, which is how everybody has interpreted pretty much since the constitution was written. Granted this is something for lawyers to argue and split hairs over but ultimately the question of whether this is constitutional would have to be decided by... the Supreme Court itself. So it's a question of whether the Justices are inclined to rule against themselves, which is not a good situation to set up in the first place.
Ironically this bill would have done nothing to prevent the current situation since it was caused by deaths and people won't stop dying due to term limits.
Now the constitution does not say that justices are appointed for life, rather it says they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour "
Now good behavior isn't clearly defined but impeachment is so it would appear that saying a person can't continue to serve despite good behavior is a violation of the constitution, which is how everybody has interpreted pretty much since the constitution was written. Granted this is something for lawyers to argue and split hairs over but ultimately the question of whether this is constitutional would have to be decided by... the Supreme Court itself. So it's a question of whether the Justices are inclined to rule against themselves, which is not a good situation to set up in the first place.
Ironically this bill would have done nothing to prevent the current situation since it was caused by deaths and people won't stop dying due to term limits.
Doomsought
Well-known member
I don't think they can even do that without making it an amendment.
Floridaman
Well-known member
they can’t but they have done stuff like that before, like their bill to make DC a state, it is something that is blatantly unconstitutional but they propose it because when the other side opposes it the media will attack them anyway and ignore all nuance.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Make it an Amendment then and make it effective immediately. If they want to tack on limits to the SC now go all the way and make it absolutely binding. That's more of a Win that a majority in the Zsc for a decade or two in my book.
Heh, let DC be a state, just move the Captial somewhere else first. Bet they would like that then.
Heh, let DC be a state, just move the Captial somewhere else first. Bet they would like that then.
Floridaman
Well-known member
You...you do know how amendments pass right? 3/4ths of the states need to agree, that is not even remotely feasible.
Realistically, there is almost no chance it will be overturned or vacated.
Too much cultural inertia is behind it, and it would have to work it's way up through the Circuit and Appeals courts first to even reach SCOTUS.
The whole 'repeal RvW' is pretty much a red herring used to try and scare women into voting D.
"If you like your baby, you can keep your baby."