Do we need to impose age limits for the supreme court?

[Oddball]

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Term limits put restrictions both the individual and the politician.

But you do not care about the restrictions on the individual, that is where you go wrong.

Politicians, through The State, put innumerable restrictions on individuals......But perish that thought that restrictions be put on them!

 

[rightwinger]

The voters apply term limits

They do it often

No they don't, dumb fuck. Term limits protect me from your Congressman, not from mine.

So you wish to restrict how others are allowed to vote

How libertarian of you

Yes, I do favor that. Voting is not a fundamental right, moron. It's just a way to choose a government. People should be prevented from voting for corrupt power hungry douchebags every way we can.

You favor corrupt politicians. Hence, you favor no limit on the franchise.

The courts have established voting as a fundamental right

Have they? Even if they did, that doesn't make if a fundamental right in fact.

Afraid it does

 

[rightwinger]

So you wish to restrict how others are allowed to vote

How libertarian of you

Yes, I do favor that. Voting is not a fundamental right, moron. It's just a way to choose a government. People should be prevented from voting for corrupt power hungry douchebags every way we can.

You favor corrupt politicians. Hence, you favor no limit on the franchise.

and you called yourself a libertarian!

Yes I do. Libertarians are no fans of unlimited democracy. If you were a real libertarian, you would know that.

As a libertarian, the less restrictions imposed by the government the better...but you would never understand that as you want the government to control it all.

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Removes the right of voters to select the candidate of their choice

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Term limits put restrictions both the individual and the politician.

But you do not care about the restrictions on the individual, that is where you go wrong.

Politicians, through The State, put innumerable restrictions on individuals......But perish that thought that restrictions be put on them!

Since politicians put innumerable restrictions on individuals it is ok if we put more restrictions on individuals...love that fucking excuse for logic there my little fake Libertarian

 

[Oddball]

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Term limits put restrictions both the individual and the politician.

But you do not care about the restrictions on the individual, that is where you go wrong.

Politicians, through The State, put innumerable restrictions on individuals......But perish that thought that restrictions be put on them!

Since politicians put innumerable restrictions on individuals it is ok if we put more restrictions on individuals...love that fucking excuse for logic there my little fake Libertarian

The fewer "choices" there are to "choose" people who will end up being our overlords, the better....Given my druthers, I'd burn the whole thing to the ground.

BTW, I gave up on libertarians a decade ago....Yours is exactly the bootlicking statist attitude that caused me to abandon the LP and reject the left-handed authoritarian mindset of "minarchy" altogether.....And you're a shitty excuse for a libertarian at that.

 

[rightwinger]

I don’t think an age limit would be constitutional.
A limit on the term of a judge would be

 

[justoffal]

Do we need to create an amendment to force retirement for positions with lifetime appointments such as the supreme court?
This amendment would obviously take time to frame and pass so it would have no impact on Ginsburg so get that out of your head.
Other than using her as an example for her age and medical problems this topic is not directly about her.
There comes a point when missing oral arguments and other important duties required to serve as a justice becomes a problem. Many issues that come before the court deserve & maybe even demand the full attention of ALL of the justices. Votes should never come down to "going with the status quo" because you missed too much work to be properly informed on all aspects of the subject.
Then we have to face the possibility of judges having diminished mental capacities that impact their decisions.

Personally I think we need age restrictions on ALL positions that have power over any aspect of American politics and law.

At the very least we need to do a mirror test to see if people who are adjudicating in behalf of this nation can at the very least spread a thin fog on a mirror.

Jo

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The fewer "choices" there are to "choose" people who will end up being our overlords, the better...

That is just stupid. We are stuck always with two choices for POTUS and the choices normally both suck. Fewer choices is never better.

BTW, I gave up on libertarians a decade ago....Yours is exactly the bootlicking statist attitude that caused me to abandon the LP and reject the left-handed authoritarian mindset of "minarchy" altogether.....And you're a shitty excuse for a libertarian at that.

Gave up being a libertarian and became a Trump worshiper...great choice.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Do we need to create an amendment to force retirement for positions with lifetime appointments such as the supreme court?
This amendment would obviously take time to frame and pass so it would have no impact on Ginsburg so get that out of your head.
Other than using her as an example for her age and medical problems this topic is not directly about her.
There comes a point when missing oral arguments and other important duties required to serve as a justice becomes a problem. Many issues that come before the court deserve & maybe even demand the full attention of ALL of the justices. Votes should never come down to "going with the status quo" because you missed too much work to be properly informed on all aspects of the subject.
Then we have to face the possibility of judges having diminished mental capacities that impact their decisions.

Personally I think we need age restrictions on ALL positions that have power over any aspect of American politics and law.

At the very least we need to do a mirror test to see if people who are adjudicating in behalf of this nation can at the very least spread a thin fog on a mirror.

Jo

Lol

 

[bripat9643]

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Term limits put restrictions both the individual and the politician.

But you do not care about the restrictions on the individual, that is where you go wrong.

Politicians, through The State, put innumerable restrictions on individuals......But perish that thought that restrictions be put on them!

GG believes politicians should be free to do whatever they want to us.

 

[bripat9643]

I don’t think an age limit would be constitutional.
A limit on the term of a judge would be

It would obviously be constitutional if we put it in the Constitution, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Term limits put restrictions both the individual and the politician.

But you do not care about the restrictions on the individual, that is where you go wrong.

Politicians, through The State, put innumerable restrictions on individuals......But perish that thought that restrictions be put on them!

Since politicians put innumerable restrictions on individuals it is ok if we put more restrictions on individuals...love that fucking excuse for logic there my little fake Libertarian

We put all kinds of restrictions on individuals, like making it illegal to rob you or take your stuff. Terms limits are of a similar nature. They limit the damage the politician you vote into office can do to me.

 

[Oddball]

"Term limits place limits on the people"

So do the constitutional limitations on who may run for congress, how old the president must be, etcetera...But putting a limit on how many terms these defacto oligarchs can lord over the peasants would be beyond the pale!

Fuck me running.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I do favor that. Voting is not a fundamental right, moron. It's just a way to choose a government. People should be prevented from voting for corrupt power hungry douchebags every way we can.

You favor corrupt politicians. Hence, you favor no limit on the franchise.

and you called yourself a libertarian!

Yes I do. Libertarians are no fans of unlimited democracy. If you were a real libertarian, you would know that.

As a libertarian, the less restrictions imposed by the government the better...but you would never understand that as you want the government to control it all.

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Removes the right of voters to select the candidate of their choice

We already have all kinds of laws that limit the candidate you can vote for, dumbass. For instance, you can't vote for a candidate for Congress who is under 25 years old. You can't vote for him if isn't a citizen.

 

[bripat9643]

No they don't, dumb fuck. Term limits protect me from your Congressman, not from mine.

So you wish to restrict how others are allowed to vote

How libertarian of you

Yes, I do favor that. Voting is not a fundamental right, moron. It's just a way to choose a government. People should be prevented from voting for corrupt power hungry douchebags every way we can.

You favor corrupt politicians. Hence, you favor no limit on the franchise.

The courts have established voting as a fundamental right

Have they? Even if they did, that doesn't make if a fundamental right in fact.

Afraid it does

No it doesn't, dumbass. Do you really believe I'm supposed to accept the expertise of the forum idiot?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

and you called yourself a libertarian!

Yes I do. Libertarians are no fans of unlimited democracy. If you were a real libertarian, you would know that.

As a libertarian, the less restrictions imposed by the government the better...but you would never understand that as you want the government to control it all.

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Removes the right of voters to select the candidate of their choice

We already have all kinds of laws that limit the candidate you can vote for, dumbass. For instance, you can't vote for a candidate for Congress who is under 25 years old. You can't vote for him if isn't a citizen.

Nice statist logic....We already have all kinds of laws that limit the candidate you can vote for...so even more will not hurt a thing.

 

[bripat9643]

The fewer "choices" there are to "choose" people who will end up being our overlords, the better...

That is just stupid. We are stuck always with two choices for POTUS and the choices normally both suck. Fewer choices is never better.

BTW, I gave up on libertarians a decade ago....Yours is exactly the bootlicking statist attitude that caused me to abandon the LP and reject the left-handed authoritarian mindset of "minarchy" altogether.....And you're a shitty excuse for a libertarian at that.

Gave up being a libertarian and became a Trump worshiper...great choice.

You nave never been a libertarian. All your inclinations are Stalinist.

 

[rightwinger]

"Term limits place limits on the people"

So do the constitutional limitations on who may run for congress, how old the president must be, etcetera...But putting a limit on how many terms these defacto oligarchs can lord over the peasants would be beyond the pale!

Fuck me running.

Don’t tell me who I can vote for
If I am happy with the person representing me, I should not be prevented from deciding who to vote for

 

[rightwinger]

So you wish to restrict how others are allowed to vote

How libertarian of you

Yes, I do favor that. Voting is not a fundamental right, moron. It's just a way to choose a government. People should be prevented from voting for corrupt power hungry douchebags every way we can.

You favor corrupt politicians. Hence, you favor no limit on the franchise.

The courts have established voting as a fundamental right

Have they? Even if they did, that doesn't make if a fundamental right in fact.

Afraid it does

No it doesn't, dumbass. Do you really believe I'm supposed to accept the expertise of the forum idiot?

Afraid it does no matter how often you dismiss the role of the courts

 

[bripat9643]

Yes I do. Libertarians are no fans of unlimited democracy. If you were a real libertarian, you would know that.

As a libertarian, the less restrictions imposed by the government the better...but you would never understand that as you want the government to control it all.

The less restrictions on individuals the better. The more restrictions on government and politicians the better.

Opposing terms limits means you favor more control for politicians.

Removes the right of voters to select the candidate of their choice

We already have all kinds of laws that limit the candidate you can vote for, dumbass. For instance, you can't vote for a candidate for Congress who is under 25 years old. You can't vote for him if isn't a citizen.

Nice statist logic....We already have all kinds of laws that limit the candidate you can vote for...so even more will not hurt a thing.

Limitations on who you can vote for and what you can vote for are a good thing. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, to prevent you from voting my rights away. Term limits serve a similar purpose.

All the people who opposed term limits are Stalinist who love government. They know the longer a politician is in office, the more corrupt he becomes. That's what you want.