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

[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.

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

Courts rule on the laws of men, not the laws of nature, you fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

"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

Yes you should, because the guy you're happy with is more than likely a corrupt scumbag.

 

[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

Yes you should, because the guy you're happy with is more than likely a corrupt scumbag.

Coming from an avowed anarchist that means...........Nothing

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

 

[bripat9643]

"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

Yes you should, because the guy you're happy with is more than likely a corrupt scumbag.

Coming from an avowed anarchist that means...........Nothing

It would be just as valid if it came from the devil himself, shit for brains. Claims are not true or false because of who states them.

I doubt if you have a single post in this forum that isn't based on a logical fallacy.

 

[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.

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. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

Only numskulls are swallowing your shtick that I'm a statist. Terms limits are opposed by statists because they want a government infested with corrupt scumbags.

 

[Oddball]

It already does, numskull.

Only numskulls are swallowing your shtick that I'm a statists. Terms limits are opposed by statists because they want a government infested with corrupt scumbags.

I'm for the ultimate in term limits:0

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

 

[bripat9643]

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. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

As I already told you, I don't have a problem with legal restrictions on who you can vote for. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer choices you have to vote away my freedom, the better.

Democracy isn't freedom, shit for brains. You should learn that before you go around calling yourself a libertarian.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

As I already told you, I don't have a problem with legal restrictions on who you can vote for. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer choices you have to vote away my freedom, the better.

Which is what makes you such a good statist...

 

[hjmick]

Age limits? No, just go with a height requirement...


You must be this tall to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States...

 

[HenryBHough]

How about we choose Supreme Court Justices the way they do up in Alaska?

The trial-lawyer dominated bar association nominates judges and the governor is required to quickly choose among them. Of course that means that non-lawyers need not apply and there is a strong bias toward coddle-the-criminal types. Trial lawyers being almost exclusively liberal Democrats it means the judges are actually chosen by THE Party.

Hey, it works in Alaska and it works in China. No, not quite. The Chinese eliminate the (bar assocation) middleman and just let THE Party make the choice....so why not in all of America?

 

[bripat9643]

Limitations on who you can vote for and what you can vote for are a good thing. .

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

As I already told you, I don't have a problem with legal restrictions on who you can vote for. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer choices you have to vote away my freedom, the better.

Which is what makes you such a good statist...

You just love trying to bait me, don't you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

spoken like the true big government statist that you are.

let the government pick who and what I can vote for...great way to limit their power!

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

As I already told you, I don't have a problem with legal restrictions on who you can vote for. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer choices you have to vote away my freedom, the better.

Which is what makes you such a good statist...

You just love trying to bait me, don't you?

it is so easy...you cannot help but let your statist tendencies come out, it is your nature

 

[bripat9643]

It already does, numskull.

.

So, now we are back to "since the government already does it...lets to it some more...."

and then you claim not to be a statist

As I already told you, I don't have a problem with legal restrictions on who you can vote for. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer choices you have to vote away my freedom, the better.

Which is what makes you such a good statist...

You just love trying to bait me, don't you?

it is so easy...you cannot help but let your statist tendencies come out, it is your nature

You're an idiot who doesn't even know what statism is. Opposing term limits is statism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Abolish it....It is a creation of congress and can be done away with by them.

^^ This ^^

The state justice departments are all that are necessary.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're an idiot who doesn't even know what statism is. Opposing term limits is statism.

You want the government to have even more power to tell people who they are allowed to vote for, and you think that is the opposite of statism?

you are just not a very bright person.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Abolish it....It is a creation of congress and can be done away with by them.

^^ This ^^

The state justice departments are all that are necessary.

except for the fact he was wrong and it is called for by the Constitution.

 

[Natural Citizen]

except for the fact he was wrong and it is called for by the Constitution.

No, he's not. Congress clearly has constitutional authority to both restrict and define the jurisdiction of federal courts. Jurisdiction, btw, only being had over lower federal courts. Certainly not other branches of government.

Not only that, but judicial review is a fabrication BY the court with absolutely no basis found for it anywhere in Article III of the constitution.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And another thing. Constitutional jurisprudence is not constitutional law.