Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[opebo]

It sounds like a good idea, however, wouldn't that create the immediate problem of all the justices coming up at the same time considering I believe they have all been justices a year or around that.  I kind of like the idea of the bill, but I don't know if it is the best thing to do at this point.  As much as I would love to see Opebo off the court after his decision in Ernest v. Gabu regarding Defarge's vote, this might not be the best way to do it.  Reconfirmation every year might be a good idea though.

What was wrong with that decision?  I don't remember it myself.

But please allow me to remind you wild-eyed reformers that those of us currently on the court would not be subject to your unatlasian innovation.  I for one intend to serve for life.

[opebo]

I do appreciate this suggestion by Lewis Trondheim, but I would like to remind the legislators that we must apply the constitution, and while I don't know about the other justices, I would invalidate any term limitation upon currently sitting justices as unconstitutional.

[opebo]

but I would like to remind the legislators that we must apply the constitution, and while I don't know about the other justices, I would invalidate any term limitation upon currently sitting justices as unconstitutional.

Under which clause?

'Ex post facto', Lewis Trondheim, 'ex post facto'.  (thanks to wikipedia).

[opebo]

What was wrong with that decision?  You ruled that Defarge's vote was not invalid even though it was clear-cut that he did not meet the requirments of posts needed.  That is why I support this bill if changed, some justices proved incapable of sitting on the court.

"Proved incapable of sitting on the court"?  Isn't this just another way of saying you disagree with the justice?  If you disagree with a decision, you just kick the justice off the Cout?

This is precisely why we need lifetime appointments - to prevent the Court being subject to political influence.  The indepencence and impartiality of the judiciary cannot survive this onslaught.

[opebo]

Tally on Ebowed's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Ebowed; Earl; Rob)
Nay: 3 (Sam; Brandon; Al)
Yet to Vote: 4 (DWTL; Lewis; PBrunsel; Phil)

Well, we can see where this is going - the right-wing majority, including the fake socialist Al, will work its will upon the Court, tragically and irrevokably politicizing it.

[opebo]

In order for me to consider the plan, King, the term "inadequate" needs to be defined and it needs to be defined clearly.

In practice, of course, it will mean 'whoever the majority disagrees with (or dislikes), SS.

[opebo]

I agree the president should not be involved.  I still think lifetime appointments are the best system for impartiality, but perhaps a review in which Senatorial unanymity were required would be a reasonable compromise.  This would eliminate the obvious problem of politicization of the Court, because even the smallest party could veto the railroading of a justice by the right-wing Senators.

[opebo]

...so that they're free to make unpopular—but judicially sound—decisions.

'Judicially sound'?  That's just another way of saying 'I don't like his decision', Mr.Rightwing.

[opebo]

I urge all Senators voting Nay or Abstaining to reconsider their decision.

The idea of judicial term limits or mandated renominations will, at its core, politicize the Supreme Court, regardless of what safeguards are erected to attempt to combat the problem.

I would ask you to provide significant evidence for this conclusion. Bullmoose was just confirmed to the Court with no opposition at all, and he will undoubtedly be a good justice. Many people who disagree with some of his politics, yourself included, voted to confirm him. Why would reconfirmation work any differently with capable justices?

'Capable'??  That is just another way of saying politically popular, verly.

[opebo]

...moderate, rational justices who rule on reason rather than ideological purity would be easily reapproved.

What are you prattling onabout verily? YOU see your ideological preferences as 'reasonable', and 'rational'.  Everyone does.  Your expectations of the court are quite simply fantasy.

Anyway Bullmoose is the classic example of someone who, while no more 'rational', 'reasonable', or 'impartial', and just as political as the rest of us, manages to pose as such simply because the ideology he imposes is more or less the status quo.  He doesn't rock the boat.  But to suggest that supporting the existing power-relationships isn't 'political' is just silly.