Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Term limits under these conditions:I'm not sure what term limits would accomplish. A balanced budget amendment makes a lot of sense, therefore, both parties would no doubt oppose it. Since we allow political parties free rein over our government we just have to sit back and take whatever they decide they want.
Apparently you missed the part about checks and balances in middle school.
Thomas - conflict of interest; Kavanaugh - drunk rapist; Barrett - lied during her confirmation hearing; Georsich - lied during confirmation hearing.Oh? Name their ethics violations.
Except that's not why I called them un-ethical. But try again, maybe your luck will change?LOL. I love it how when justices don't decide cases the way you want you call them unethical.
Usually 'term limits' mean setting the number of times a representative can be reelected. You appear to be talking about setting specific conditions for any representative office. I agree with restricting things you mention that could lead to conflict of interest. But as far as wages and benefits are concerned, while our representatives' salaries are way above average, and they get the kind of benefits most of us can only dream about, I believe they would be worth it all if they could just represent us instead of their own special interests.Term limits under these conditions:
- All assets go into a blind trust while serving.
- salary only, no retirement.
- No knowledge of any stock trades using your assets while serving.
You come, you serve, you go home and live under the laws you voted for.
The problem is the SCOTUS IS the oversight.What could possibly go wrong with the most powerful 9 people in the country having zero oversight.
This is your authoritarian wet dream come true.
The problem is the SCOTUS IS the oversight.
This is essentially an exercise in who oversees the overseers overseeing the overseers overseeing the overseers overseeing the overseers.....
They already have oversight, it is in the form of impeachment and removal. Much more than that then they become an arm of the legislative branch. That is fundamentally opposed to how our system works.
Studies show that the longer a politician is in office, the more he spends.I'm not sure what term limits would accomplish. A balanced budget amendment makes a lot of sense, therefore, both parties would no doubt oppose it. Since we allow political parties free reign over our government we just have to sit back and take whatever they decide they want.
Bill_Oreilly - moron.Thomas - conflict of interest; Kavanaugh - drunk rapist; Barrett - lied during her confirmation hearing; Georsich - lied during confirmation hearing.
Happy?
We are in that situation now because we have willingly, and ignorantly, allowed political parties to take government control out of the hands of citizens and assume that power for themselves.
Thomas - conflict of interest; Kavanaugh - drunk rapist; Barrett - lied during her confirmation hearing; Georsich - lied during confirmation hearing.
Happy?
I’m talking about both.Usually 'term limits' mean setting the number of times a representative can be reelected. You appear to be talking about setting specific conditions for any representative office. I agree with restricting things you mention that could lead to conflict of interest. But as far as wages and benefits are concerned, while our representatives' salaries are way above average, and they get the kind of benefits most of us can only dream about, I believe they would be worth it all if they could just represent us instead of their own special interests.
The Congress decides, Simp.What could they possibly be impeached for when they have no code of conduct or rules they have to follow?
You owe morons everywhere an apology.Bill_Oreilly - moron.
Lol, I guess they all wanna have lavish vacations and houses bought from them and still get to live there like Thomas. They also don't wanna have to report it. They all wanna be bought and paid for by special interests. Seems they all should be in D block and replaced.My oh my! I wonder what the left think about this. Apparently all 9 justices, which includes the staunch liberals, aren't in favor of SC oversight.
There's no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code.
All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.
All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says
In a rare joint statement, the justices said they want to "provide new clarity."abc30.com
What I would be looking for is the same kind of oversight we apply to all other government officials, not a controlling interest over how the SCOTUS interprets the constitution.Can you imagine the havoc that would happen if the same branch that creates the laws also could leverage the branch that interprets the laws?
I would be more in favor of continuing to let citizens decide when representatives should leave office, assuming the decision was based on a representative's ability to represent citizens rather than their own special, political interests. We need to change the reason we vote for representatives.i would suggest 3 terms in the house and two in the senate.
It's based on the power of incumbency. We need to change representatives on a regular basis. Waiting for them to get voted out of office is the sign of a fool.I would be more in favor of continuing to let citizens decide when representatives should leave office, assuming the decision was based on a representative's ability to represent citizens rather than their own special, political interests. We need to change the reason we vote for representatives.
What I would be looking for is the same kind of oversight we apply to all other government officials, not a controlling interest over how the SCOTUS interprets the constitution.
