Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized

Bad fall. Not good. She needs to hang on for two more years.

Trump will get three nominees.

She broke a couple ribs two years ago too. Tough old bird.

DWags wrote:Bad fall. Not good. She needs to hang on for two more years.

Trump will get three nominees.

This is beginning to strike me as a problem with the Constitution, when the incumbent party can tilt the deck to such extremes in a short period of time. Talk me down from the ledge.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

DWags wrote:Bad fall. Not good. She needs to hang on for two more years.

Trump will get three nominees.

This is beginning to strike me as a problem with the Constitution, when the incumbent party can tilt the deck to such extremes in a short period of time. Talk me down from the ledge.

Why? Because Senate districts are gerrymandered?

Joy Behar Claims Democrats Lost Senate Races Due To Gerrymandering wrote:

I'm in favor of term limiting federal judges. 20 years seems long enough. Of course you'd have to grandfather in the sitting judges and in a big ask amend the Constitution

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I'm in favor of term limiting federal judges. 20 years seems long enough. Of course you'd have to grandfather in the sitting judges and in a big ask amend the Constitution

Or congress could do its job.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I'm in favor of term limiting federal judges. 20 years seems long enough. Of course you'd have to grandfather in the sitting judges and in a big ask amend the Constitution

I like this idea.

I’ve mentioned it a few times before- but at least for the Supreme Court, 18 year terms. One comes up every 2 years. No president could ever nominate more than 4, and the next president could immediately start turning the tide if the country is like “fuck this shit.” I’d set that every two years to be first early in the presidential term and second just after the midterms. Let the picks be a reflection of what the people actually want.

Rocinante wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I'm in favor of term limiting federal judges. 20 years seems long enough. Of course you'd have to grandfather in the sitting judges and in a big ask amend the Constitution

Or congress could do its job.

Article 3 establishes lifetime tenure

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Or congress could do its job.

Article 3 establishes lifetime tenure

Point being that the increased power of the judicial and executive branches is directly related to the decreased power of the legislative. Congress has slowly been abdicating it's power since I'd say 9/11

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I’ve mentioned it a few times before- but at least for the Supreme Court, 18 year terms. One comes up every 2 years. No president could ever nominate more than 4, and the next president could immediately start turning the tide if the country is like “fuck this shit.” I’d set that every two years to be first early in the presidential term and second just after the midterms. Let the picks be a reflection of what the people actually want.

At first blush, I like this idea.

Rocinante wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Article 3 establishes lifetime tenure

Point being that the increased power of the judicial and executive branches is directly related to the decreased power of the legislative. Congress has slowly been abdicating it's power since I'd say 9/11

You're off by 20 years, at least

I.B. Fine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Point being that the increased power of the judicial and executive branches is directly related to the decreased power of the legislative. Congress has slowly been abdicating it's power since I'd say 9/11

You're off by 20 years, at least

I'd peg it to 87. They swung and missed at Reagan over Iran-Contra and then threw in the towel.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Or congress could do its job.

Article 3 establishes lifetime tenure

When the Constitution was written the life expectancy was around 35 years. Now what is it, 75 or so? So is that really what the framers wanted?