Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Ebowed]

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase [friendly amendment]:
"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

I would, as DWTL also notes, be uncomfortable with 3 nominations coming up at the same time as the court should have some degree of consistency.

[Ebowed]

How about "Judicial Term Amendment"?

Accepted as friendly.

[Ebowed]

I tend to agree with Justices TexasGurl and Opebo.  While I have sponsored this amendment on behalf of the administration, I am skeptical of the wisdom in subjecting Justices to partisan scrutiny on a scheduled basis.  If the proposal cannot be satisfactorily amended to take steps to address this problem, I will not vote for it.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Ebowed]

That's an acceptable idea, but if there's a tie, the issue should just fail and the Justice is found adequate.

[Ebowed]

I motion for cloture.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Ebowed]

And agreed—a lifetime appointment is a luxury ill-fitting a three-member judicial board.

Not really.  It's hard enough to find people to serve on the Court as it is.  Until a few days ago two of the three Justices had served on the court before, resigned, and been nominated again.  The people willing to do this sort of thing are not numerous.

[Ebowed]

Nay.

[Ebowed]

I motion for cloture.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote.

Really?  They've been counted as Nays even since that silly court battle

[Ebowed]

cheesewhiz vs senate of atlasia IIRC.  unless Al was talking about something else