Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Verily]

It seems reasonable to leave the personal definition of inadequacy up to the Senators. It would be essentially impossible to specifically define what sorts of offenses Senators could or could not oppose the renewal of a justice's term on (barring, I suppose, complete mental incapacity). Perhaps a line about "the Senators' individual discretion" could be added.

[Verily]

Do you need cloture after a certain amount of time?

No. But we now have cloture anyways.

No, you still need PBrunsel (because DWTL hasn't voted on anything since even before his defeat).

[Verily]

Do you need cloture after a certain amount of time?

No. But we now have cloture anyways.

No, you still need PBrunsel (because DWTL hasn't voted on anything since even before his defeat).

Or you could just run out the clock.  In 1 hour 10 minutes, the DWTL seat goes vacant, and you only need 6 votes.

Ah, true. I suppose we don't have formal "sessions", then?

[Verily]

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

[Verily]

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?

[Verily]

I will go further and make the argument that permanent appointments more greatly politicize the court. Presidents are encouraged to nominate candidates as extreme towards their own ideology as can be approved by the Senate in order to ensure that their own views are represented on the court for years to come. Reconfirmation would discourage such practices because it would be highly unlikely that extremists would be reconfirmed, yet moderate, rational justices who rule on reason rather than ideological purity would be easily reapproved.

[Verily]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote. Mainly because of a very silly court ruling made by a court full of people who really should have known better than to intervene in the internal business of the Senate.

Anyway, I've yet to decide how to vote. My problem is this; while I think that the court needs its wings clipped (not so much a comment on the current court, as on past (and perhaps future?) ones. You know, the ones full of far-right hacks who abused their positions rather more than was entirely decent...), I worry about further politicising what is already a highly politicised institution.

As I pointed out, reappointment encourages consensus candidates rather than hacks from either the far left or far right.

[Verily]

Not convinced that a centrist hack is any good either.

I'm not sure what you mean. I would expect both the left and the right to oppose a hack from the center. This is about consensus candidates; Bullmoose is a good example.

[Verily]

...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.

Bullmoose's views are the status quo!? And there you show your complete ignorance.

Nor would I be inclined to say that the most reasonable justices would be those closest to my views (though you seem to find yourself, and perhaps TexasGurl, the only possible appropriate justices).