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

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Article III - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

sigh...

 

[Oddball]

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.

I erred in saying that USSC wasn't in the Constitution at all in a now edited post.....That said, they're a creation of the congress and not superior to them....If congress saw fit, they could abolish USSC tomorrow and declare every one of its edicts null and void ab initio.

Wouldn't that be a fuckin' hoot?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Looks like Golfing Gator just helped us prove our point, Oddball.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I erred in saying that USSC wasn't in the Constitution at all in a now edited post.....That said, they're a creation of the congress and not superior to them....If congress saw fit, they could abolish USSC tomorrow and declare every one of its edicts null and void ab initio.

Wouldn't that be a fuckin' hoot?

Yeah. Hell, they could make the court 50 judges if they wanted. They could overhaul the entire court in a single afternoon with minimal legislation.

 

[Oddball]

Looks like Golfing Gator just helped us prove our point, Oddball.

Well, he he's trying to pass himself as something he's not...People like that always trip themselves up sooner or later.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Looks like Golfing Gator just helped us prove our point, Oddball.

Well, he he's trying to pass himself as something he's not...People like that always trip themselves up sooner or later.

Yeah. Is what it is. I've been asking them to find judicial review in Article III for years. Good thing I never hold my breath. It's a complete and total fabrication made up by Chief Justice John Marshall.

No place in Article III is the court empowered to decide what may or may not be legal in our states, towns, districts, businesses or whatever. Only thing the SCOTUS is doing is serving to centralize power into the hands of a certain few federal personnel in D.C who send their kids to the same schools they do.

 

[satrebil]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'm not going to debate the point with a Stalinist idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

 

[satrebil]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

I'm not following you... ?

 

[bripat9643]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

I'm not following you... ?

Your limits won't limit anything.

 

[satrebil]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

I'm not following you... ?

Your limits won't limit anything.

If you're implying that the individual states would become overbearing mini-feds, I can't say I disagree & that could be addressed in other ways. But at least there would be 50 to choose from and you could decide which one you hated the least.

 

[Kondor3]

Option 4:

* I would support both term limits and age limits on ALL high government officials... President, Congress and SCOTUS

( in the case of SCOTUS, term limits and age limits are the same thing; appointed for life, until they hit the Magic Age )

 

[bripat9643]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

Why not age limits?

 

[bripat9643]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

I'm not following you... ?

Your limits won't limit anything.

If you're implying that the individual states would become overbearing mini-feds, I can't say I disagree & that could be addressed in other ways. But at least there would be 50 to choose from and you could decide which one you hated the least.

No, the federal government would return to being the all powerful monolith we suffer under now.

 

[satrebil]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

Why not age limits?

Just so we're clear, when I say no to age limits I don't mean an 18 year old should be on SCOTUS. I do believe there should be a minimum age. I don't believe in a maximum age because simply being "old" should not be a disqualifier. As long as they are in good health and their mental faculties are sound they should not be restricted from serving. I've known a number of 80+ year olds that were sharp as a tack and entirely self sufficient.

 

[satrebil]

Age limits? No.
Term limits, competency and medical fitness tests? Yes.

RBG has no business being on the court any longer. Her health issues are having a direct impact on the court's ability to function and she should be removed. I would say the same regardless of whether she's 85 or 35.

If it were up to me I'd change the very nature of the court itself. It's jurisdiction should be limited to 2 things:

1) Settling disputes between states.
2) The direct Constitutionality of a law. IE - if the subject in question is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has no business issuing a ruling on it - it should be a state matter. No more nationwide rulings over things like abortion, gay marriage, or health care coverage that piss off half the country and push us ever closer to open conflict.

That will get twisted to support massive state intervention just as the original Constitution was.

I'm not following you... ?

Your limits won't limit anything.

If you're implying that the individual states would become overbearing mini-feds, I can't say I disagree & that could be addressed in other ways. But at least there would be 50 to choose from and you could decide which one you hated the least.

No, the federal government would return to being the all powerful monolith we suffer under now.

Well to be fair that's really a flaw in democracy as a whole. People always end up voting against their own interests, even if they think they aren't.