Term-Limits

[DanJ]

Surpeme Court Justices shouldn't be there until they retire/die...I say 10 years max.

Times changes; the judges should change with them.

 

[Spamela]

i'm totally opposed to them. if someone keeps getting re-elected, then so be it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
But the opposite argument comes into play as well - a president unconcerned about re-election is free to, well, not focus their entire strategy on getting re-elected.

Term limits aren't a perfect solution, but think how long you would have had Clinton for if not for term limits; they definitely go a long way to preventing dynasties from taking root.

This could be a good thing. Eventually, someone might bite the bullet and fix things like SS if they didn't have to worry about reelection.

 

[Genx87]

2 terms for the senate
6 terms for a house rep.

This lifer crap only ends up getting people who are truely disengaged from their people. What does Kennedy know about Mass anyways? The guy has been in Washington DC for about 30 years.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Thump553
An excellent idea prompted by the GOP a decade plus ago to seize power in Congress, and subsequently abandoned when their "term limit" would be up.

The present rules of awarding chairmanships and other powers based on seniority is absolutely wrong, counterproductive and needs to be dumped.

:thumbsup:

 

[Pliablemoose]

Term limits are a band aid for the real problem: People don't vote.

If voters took their responsibility seriously, and took lame politicians to task for their screw ups, there would be no need for term limits.

Public service was initially a hardship to be endured, similar to being drafted, now it's a career, raises are automatic, & we have a dog in the manger scenario.

Robert Byrd is a disgrace, & I don't mean to pick on the Democrats, it's a problem on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Luck JF]

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Luck JF
I'd like to see not only term limits but elections for Supreme Court Judges.

But the whole point of the judiciary is that since its members are not appointed, they will not be affected by public pressures in the form of constituency loyalty or fear of getting elected. That's supposed to provide a check on Congress and the executive and ensure that the justices uphold the principles of the law rather than what is convenient.

Understood but it doesn't work. What you describes offers them the opportunity to uphold the principles of the COnstitution yet does not guarantee that they will not put any sort of pressure on them to do so. With so many split votes it is hard to fathom that they can even be reading the same Constitution sometimes.

 

[piasabird]

I am all for term limits. Lets start with the Supreme Court and the Court system.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Surpeme Court Justices shouldn't be there until they retire/die...I say 10 years max.

Times changes; the judges should change with them.

You've got to be kidding me. Congress makes the laws, if they do something unconsitutional the court overturns it, if congress doesn't like it they can admend the consitution. This a VERY sound working theory. We need justices that have the life experience to be fully aquainted with constitutional law and we don't need them to be bowing to political demands because they want to get re-elected. After all these individuals are deciding matters in which people can spend many many years in jail and possibly even be executed.

I don't like some of the decisions the court makes but I wouldn't dare change it's arrangement and politicize our judicial system.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: DanJ
Surpeme Court Justices shouldn't be there until they retire/die...I say 10 years max.

Times changes; the judges should change with them.

You've got to be kidding me. Congress makes the laws, if they do something unconsitutional the court overturns it, if congress doesn't like it they can admend the consitution. This a VERY sound working theory. We need justices that have the life experience to be fully aquainted with constitutional law and we don't need them to be bowing to political demands because they want to get re-elected. After all these individuals are deciding matters in which people can spend many many years in jail and possibly even be executed.

I don't like some of the decisions the court makes but I wouldn't dare change it's arrangement and politicize our judicial system.

I concur.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So would anyone vote for a politician who promised X terms but then broke his promised term limit?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So would anyone vote for a politician who promised X terms but then broke his promised term limit?

CsG

I take it is a resounding "no"?

CsG

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Spamela
i'm totally opposed to them. if someone keeps getting re-elected, then so be it.

The problem is that of the 100 members of the Senate, I get to vote for only 2 of them. Of the 435 (I'm probably wrong on that number) members of the House, I get to vote for exactly 1 of them. I'm just not too pleased with the job the rest of the country's doing sending people to Washington.

 

[Stunt]

what is the point of the limited to 2 term president?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's insane that Strom Thurmonds and Ted Kennedy's exist like Kings of an Empire.

These Empires spread throughout the system making a mockery out of the whole Country. It is the reason why we are in the mess we are now and going down the road of the Roman Empire.

You're missing your swings on your history here. Career polititians like Cicero and Kato were strong republican forces in the days immediately before Ceasar. It was the young, charismatic, talented general that gained enough support to ignore the politicians.