• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court? [W:18]

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

  • Fine as is, lifetime appointments

    Votes: 19 67.9%
  • Limited terms, one term only

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Limited terms, but allow multiple terms if re-confirmed

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Total voters
    28

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?

I tend to like the independence and consistency the present conditions afford. It would be bad in the Executive or the Legislative. But in the Supreme Court it seems just right.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Terms seem a bad idea. Just like in the Netherlands judges are independent and can only be fired if they break the laws themselves.

Justices need to be independent and not be at the mercy of politicians who could theoretically then can remove them from office because of political reasons, crippling the supreme court/judiciary.

But maybe an age limit would be imaginable, say 75 or 80 tops.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?

I am fine with lifetime appointments.I do not like the idea of justices being beholden to the whims of whoever the new congress and president are. However I think the justices should be vetted more thoroughly and it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution.For example a justice who cities foreign law should be thrown out, a justice who adds a restriction to an amendment that was never there before should be thrown out. Anyone with a brain in their head knows these people make rulings based on personal ideology and not what the constitution actually says.This is why supreme court rulings are often split based on ideology.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

I am fine with lifetime appointments.I do not like the idea of justices being beholden to the whims of whoever the new congress and president are. However I think the justices should be vetted more thoroughly and it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution.For example a justice who cities foreign law should be thrown out, a justice who adds a restriction to an amendment that was never there before should be thrown out. Anyone with a brain in their head knows these people make rulings based on personal ideology and not what the constitution actually says.This is why supreme court rulings are often split based on ideology.

Completely agree with this. I know there are some things in the Constitution that could have been worded better, but most of it is pretty clear cut.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

I would advocate for one 10 year term. That way they will run over into a new Presidency (for sure), but won't be there for life. IMO, no one in DC should be in ANY office for life.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?

Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.

Seriously, I haven't decided whether I personally approve of the HL ruling, but people are acting as if the sky is falling.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Seriously, I haven't decided whether I personally approve of the HL ruling, but people are acting as if the sky is falling.

Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.

Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics. Or, dislike of universal health care.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.
The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.

Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics.
The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.

The role of the U.S. Constitution (and, far more importantly, the ancient English common law that it governs) is to be equitable and fair, regardless of social class. That's what sets it apart from the High and Low Justices that dominated the legal landscape of other medieval societies (France) and culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

Justice is a universal moral concept. It isn't specific to any particular legal system. Rather, humans devise legal systems which live up to the ideals of justice (or fail).

The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.

Teaching the class, maybe.

Party =/= Ideology. Republican Party lost interest in progressivism and started appealing to conservatives in order to get the numbers in needed to remain a viable national level party and the Democratic Party went left when blue collar start liberalizing due to Unions. Civil Rights Movement put the boot in the old superstructure.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.

Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics. Or, dislike of universal health care.

The Klu Klux Klan were all Democrats. And the Democratic party remains the party of race division.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The Klu Klux Klan were all Democrats. And the Democratic party remains the party of race division.

The Klu Klux Klan were social conservatives. Society was a certain way, and they wanted it to stay that way no matter what criminal acts they had to sink to to make it happen. What party they claimed has no relevance.

I would be interested in hearing why you think it does.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The role of the U.S. Constitution (and, far more importantly, the ancient English common law that it governs) is to be equitable and fair, regardless of social class. That's what sets it apart from the High and Low Justices that dominated the legal landscape of other medieval societies (France) and culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

Justice is a universal moral concept. It isn't specific to any particular legal system. Rather, humans devise legal systems which live up to the ideals of justice (or fail).



Teaching the class, maybe.

Party =/= Ideology. Republican Party lost interest in progressivism and started appealing to conservatives in order to get the numbers in needed to remain a viable national level party and the Democratic Party went left when blue collar start liberalizing due to Unions. Civil Rights Movement put the boot in the old superstructure.

Nope, the shift in membership from Democratic to Republican was only about 8%. The racists and segregationists remained with the Democrats for the most part and just started using different means, like co-opting black leaders with tax payer money. LBJ is an excellent example of that.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The Klu Klux Klan were social conservatives. Society was a certain way, and they wanted it to stay that way no matter what criminal acts they had to sink to to make it happen. What party they claimed has no relevance.

I would be interested in hearing why you think it does.

Because Democrats are still pretty much the same, promoting racial division.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Nope, the shift in membership from Democratic to Republican was only about 8%. The racists and segregationists remained with the Democrats for the most part and just started using different means, like co-opting black leaders with tax payer money. LBJ is an excellent example of that.

... I'm going to guess that the 8% comes from the 1960s.

Conservatives and progressives were changing parties before the 1960s and before Civil Rights started. Since the 1910s or before. Why, would be a pain in the ass to explain.

Because Democrats are still pretty much the same, promoting racial division.

Maybe the issue is more complex than you make it out to be. Maybe you aren't 100% fair or impartial. Maybe I shouldn't trust you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.

I wonder how many constitutional amendments conservatives support...

Hint: it is several, from an anti-anortion amendment, to a flag burning amendment, to anti-SSM to balanced budget.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Moderator's Warning:
A poster managed to threadjack this thread with non-topical bait.

It ends now.

Get on topic. And if anyone, specifically the original baiter, doens't adhere to this then expect points and/or a thread ban to be inbound
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The reason why people think reforms are necessary is because humans won't do the right thing without a system forcing them to. Aka, congressmen won't refuse Big Money, so we should make term limits. Hey, how about the people refuse to vote for someone who is on Big Money's payroll and how about Congressmen take charge and refuse to deal with Big Money? Then we won't have to reform anything at all!

Reforms aren't the end-all-be-all of human political behaviour, and I don't know exactly when or why Americans started thinking somehow they were the solution to our problems. A law, program, or policy isn't even 10% of what makes society work. It is the willingness to comply with, carry out, and respect the law that makes 90% of society. Hence, Prohibition - biggest most expensive reform of its time - failed because Americans at every level didn't respect it, refused to comply with it, and acted against it in anyway they could, however small; they invented a huge industry resisting it, an unmanageable economic force the government could never hope to regulate or control as long as it was in the shadows. War on Drugs failed for similar reasons.

The answer isn't that we need to change how the Supreme Court works.

We need our Supreme Court Justices to be better so that there is no need to even talk about replacing them.

You don't need to ban alcohol. You barely need to ban anything. You need to know how to handle yourself -- become disciplined and strong willed enough -- so that addiction doesn't destroy yourself or others. That's a far more effective tether than all the rules, laws, and punishments in the world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The reason why people think reforms are necessary is because humans won't do the right thing without a system forcing them to. Aka, congressmen won't refuse Big Money, so we should make term limits. Hey, how about the people refuse to vote for someone who is on Big Money's payroll and how about Congressmen take charge and refuse to deal with Big Money? Then we won't have to reform anything at all!

Reforms aren't the end-all-be-all of human political behaviour, and I don't know exactly when or why Americans started thinking somehow they were the solution to our problems. A law, program, or policy isn't even 10% of what makes society work. It is the willingness to comply with, carry out, and respect the law that makes 90% of society. Hence, Prohibition - biggest most expensive reform of its time - failed because Americans at every level didn't respect it, refused to comply with it, and acted against it in anyway they could, however small; they invented a huge industry resisting it, an unmanageable economic force the government could never hope to regulate or control as long as it was in the shadows. War on Drugs failed for similar reasons.

The answer isn't that we need to change how the Supreme Court works.

We need our Supreme Court Justices to be better so that there is no need to even talk about replacing them.

You don't need to ban alcohol. You barely need to ban anything. You need to know how to handle yourself -- become disciplined and strong willed enough -- so that addiction doesn't destroy yourself or others. That's a far more effective tether than all the rules, laws, and punishments in the world.
Pretty much agree with this. I think it's the lazy way out. An attempt to "fix" things and still remain uninvolved.

As far as limits go, whether it be political office or the SC, but especially political office, why do people think that their longed-for knight in shining armor will magically pop up and lead us forward?
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Pretty much agree with this. I think it's the lazy way out. An attempt to "fix" things and still remain uninvolved.

As far as limits go, whether it be political office or the SC, but especially political office, why do people think that their longed-for knight in shining armor will magically pop up and lead us forward?

Mostly, because its easy. You don't have to investigate how causality an human nature work in order to understand the difficulties of making hundreds of millions (billions when you count the non-American who participate indirectly in our economy and political structure through alliances) of chattering, unruly primates get along with each other when their interests are tied up in multiple policy-driving organizations whose goals they wish to be realized no matter what it costs anyone outside their selected groups. You don't have to re-invent your identity until your perceptions match what extensive research and reasoning suggest is the correct conclusion. All you have to do is root for your favorite team and its star players. Cheer for the referee when he gives a close call to your team and boo when he gives a close call to opposing team.

"Rooting for your favorite team" is the source of a lot of the evils that have occurred in history.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

One term with age limits. Term could be as long as 10-15 years even. Retire at 80.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.

The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.

yes those Democrats were conservatives
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

I am fine with lifetime appointments.I do not like the idea of justices being beholden to the whims of whoever the new congress and president are. However I think the justices should be vetted more thoroughly and it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution.For example a justice who cities foreign law should be thrown out, a justice who adds a restriction to an amendment that was never there before should be thrown out. Anyone with a brain in their head knows these people make rulings based on personal ideology and not what the constitution actually says.This is why supreme court rulings are often split based on ideology.

My thoughts exactly. I wish there was an oversight on the actions of these judges. They supposed to be above politics and partisan beholdings. The fact that the same judges vote the same way, all the time, should be a big red warning light. The law at the supreme could level should be more black and white and not so much gray. Right is right, wrong is wrong. The law is the law. How could they always fall on one side of any given issue just like the Dems and the Reps do in congress? The supreme court is a political court these days. I have not much more respect for them than I do our congress.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

yes those Democrats were conservatives

Anything to step away from your past eh? Too funny....
 
Back
Top Bottom