Biden vs. The Supreme Court. Ready to propose term limits etc.....

Higher Tech

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
14,650
Reputation
2,211
Daps
37,935
Reppin
Gary, Indiana
No mention of term limits for Congress?

Tangible verdict: Rejected
jordan-michael-jordan.gif
Term limits for the Supreme Court is more important. At least congress gets voted in, a lifetime appointment is nasty work.
 

voiture

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
3,365
Reputation
117
Daps
14,099
I mean sure but :francis: if anything ALL of washington needs term limits not just the courts.. that's the problem...
You have to walk before you can run.
The supreme court is the main one right now. At least get the conversation started because the court will become aggressively right wing as their numbers go down.
 

ORDER_66

Demon Time coming 2024
Bushed
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
146,916
Reputation
15,764
Daps
585,862
Reppin
Queens,NY
You have to walk before you can run.
The supreme court is the main one right now. At least get the conversation started because the court will become aggressively right wing as their numbers go down.

its not gonna work out the way you want it to bruh :mjlol: this is gonna fail...
 

Higher Tech

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
14,650
Reputation
2,211
Daps
37,935
Reppin
Gary, Indiana
I mean sure but :francis: if anything ALL of washington needs term limits not just the courts.. that's the problem...
I'm really not a fan of term limits for congress. It's tough to get legitimate reasoning why. Those guys have constituents that vote for them every term. The Supreme Court needs them tho. It should have happened a million years ago.
 

Scustin Bieburr

Baby baybee baybee UUUGH
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
20,849
Reputation
9,922
Daps
118,806
It's good politics, because the majority of voters believe the Supreme Court is out of control, but this will never pass Congress.
It's part of the strategy.

"Look at what we are trying to do for you and look at who is trying to stop it. We care about improving your lives, they only care about improving theirs."

They'll have hard evidence.
We tried to do X and they blocked it.
We tried to do Y and they blocked it.
We tried to do Z and they blocked it.

We know these are the things you want because you said so in so many polls and with your vote when you voted for our platform. Look who cares more about themselves than America.

We offer you the things you want. They offer you nothing, in fact they offer you less than nothing. They want to take what little is left while cutting taxes on people who make more money every year than you and five of your neighbors combined.

If election day is a federal holiday
If felons were allowed to vote(seeing as apparently one can run for office)
If gerrymandering was made illegal
If there were term limits for all elected and appointed positions.

You will have killed the republican party and forced it to turn into a party that actually has to win people over with legitimate policies instead of just appealing to prejudice. They have no plan for climate change even as natural disasters wipe away lives and property. They have no plan for housing even as businesses buy up the little affordable housing left and jack up the price. They have no plan for increasing access to medication and doctors. They have no plan for addressing the population decline. They have no plan for bringing jobs back to America while China continues to invest in its own manufacturing and businesses which will compete aggressively. They have nothing other than a promise to make life harder for other people that don't even have the power to affect others standard of living.
 
Last edited:

concise

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
39,167
Reputation
3,419
Daps
95,441

Most of the country has mandatory retirement for judges. Why shouldn't it apply to the Supreme Court?


I'm really not a fan of term limits for congress. It's tough to get legitimate reasoning why. Those guys have constituents that vote for them every term. The Supreme Court needs them tho. It should have happened a million years ago.



Well, we can start with the fact that the House wasn't always 435, it grew to that number.

And districts are bigger than ever. Average house district has 760k people in it. In the 1980s, it was 500k. In the 1790s, it was 34k.

If the House won't expand, forcing new blood in constantly with term limits will get a government that reflects the people better.
 

Toe Jay Simpson

Searchin’
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
24,229
Reputation
7,779
Daps
131,412
Reppin
Carmel City
Just the stuff he’s been proposing alone should quell any fears people have of Trump taking the office in 2025. Executable or not they are great ideas that people are going to get behind pause
 

Higher Tech

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
14,650
Reputation
2,211
Daps
37,935
Reppin
Gary, Indiana

Most of the country has mandatory retirement for judges. Why shouldn't it apply to the Supreme Court?






Well, we can start with the fact that the House wasn't always 435, it grew to that number.

And districts are bigger than ever. Average house district has 760k people in it. In the 1980s, it was 500k. In the 1790s, it was 34k.

If the House won't expand, forcing new blood in constantly with term limits will get a government that reflects the people better.
I have a hard time agreeing here, but Im open to the conversation.

If the people are participating in the process, new blood will show up where it’s necessary. Congress’ committee appointments are usually earned by tenure. And that tenure is important because congressional matters can get complicated and you want someone leading the committee that knows the ropes.
 
Top