DC Tom Posted December 21, 2018 Posted December 21, 2018 30 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. No we haven't. He's always been this boorish and stupid.
boyst Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. Proof? Or you just spouting out your ass again?
Koko78 Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 4 hours ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: That is true, but not healthy for the republic. Elected officials should have a set retirement age and term limits. Case in point, John McCain. Some of these people are masking serious health problems that may or may not be affecting their ability to effectively function. I will throw it out there, 80 yrs old should be it for ANY elected official. The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges.
B-Man Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 Quote Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump Wishing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery! 4:16 PM - 21 Dec 2018 .
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. Will no one rid me of this turbulent Jurist?
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, B-Man said: . I'm disappointed in myself. I know CNN's going to spin that negatively...but I can't figure out how.
KD in CA Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? 1
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? No.
Doc Brown Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy imagining the scope of the left wing conniption should Trump get to pick her replacement? They’ll be campaigning on packing the SC
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. There is no mention of specific lifetime tenure in the constitution. They just did not specify a specic time period of how long they can serve. So, naturally, everyone assumes they serve for life.
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Koko78 said: The problem with that, and the point of lifetime tenure in the Constitution, was to prevent arbitrary laws to eliminate legislatures from modifying the laws to get rid of judges that aren't agreeing with them. Say Congress makes retirement age 80 for the Supreme Court. Well, they don't like the next crop of judges, so maybe they change it to 60 to get rid of troublesome judges. I understand that. However, RBG voting from her hospital bed? Strom Thurmond at 100 with his aids on the Senate floor voting? Louise Slaughter was 88 when she died in office after having gerrymandered her district to ensure she'd never lose (when it went from the 30th to the 28th (this was a real treat - just enough of NF, and Rochester to make certain the Rs on the lake has no real representation) to the 25th after population loss). There are tons of examples going back 150 years, but it (longer, older tenures) has been much more common since the 20th century when people's life expectancy increased exponentially. What nature took care of in the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a "solution" today. If age restrictions can be imposed due to age (military enlistments, pilots, etc) in some fields (more so with union restrictions), why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? Edited December 22, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal 1
Nanker Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 11 hours ago, B-Man said: . Proof of his diminishing mental faculties. #IMPEACH! 1
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/12/rbg-cancer/578869/
Koko78 Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? The Constitution. The Constitution decrees that federal judges are judges for as long as they behave themselves, whether it's 5 minutes or 500 years (hell, Judge Curtin - the guy who admitted me into federal court - was a LBJ appointee). Hamilton lays out the reasoning pretty well in Federalist 78. Similarly, Congress cannot regulate qualifications for being in Congress for the same reason they had no power to take it upon themselves to limit the presidency to two terms. The only way to have Congressional term limits and/or Judicial age limits is to amend the Constitution.
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The Constitution. The Constitution decrees that federal judges are judges for as long as they behave themselves, whether it's 5 minutes or 500 years (hell, Judge Curtin - the guy who admitted me into federal court - was a LBJ appointee). Hamilton lays out the reasoning pretty well in Federalist 78. Similarly, Congress cannot regulate qualifications for being in Congress for the same reason they had no power to take it upon themselves to limit the presidency to two terms. The only way to have Congressional term limits and/or Judicial age limits is to amend the Constitution. That is interesting. I did not know the consititution spoke to no age limits. I was always under the assumption (clearly wrong) that nothing was spelled out, so the assumption was there was no age limit (i.e. Lack of a specific age or term limit mentioned meant that no age or term limit, was implied). Well, since they got an amendment for presidential term limits through 65 years ago, then I guess term limits for congress, and age limits for both congress and federal "lifetime" judicial appointments are in order as well. (Like that will happen) Edited December 23, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal
Keukasmallies Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 On 12/21/2018 at 1:07 PM, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, we've seen a sharp mental decline in DJT starting when he wanted to be involved with politics, but that might just be him. Not sure that's the case. The spotlight is on him now, but merely showcases the personality and mannerisms he touted most of his life. A clear indication of the extent to which we Deplorables were fed up with business-as-usual in DC promoted by the election and reelection of the same old hacks. Unfortunately, no one in power seems to be working to fix anything in DC.
B-Man Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 This feels creepy... even for Michael Moore. ............ 1
Kemp Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 On 12/22/2018 at 8:02 AM, Buffalo_Gal said: I understand that. However, RBG voting from her hospital bed? Strom Thurmond at 100 with his aids on the Senate floor voting? Louise Slaughter was 88 when she died in office after having gerrymandered her district to ensure she'd never lose (when it went from the 30th to the 28th (this was a real treat - just enough of NF, and Rochester to make certain the Rs on the lake has no real representation) to the 25th after population loss). There are tons of examples going back 150 years, but it (longer, older tenures) has been much more common since the 20th century when people's life expectancy increased exponentially. What nature took care of in the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a "solution" today. If age restrictions can be imposed due to age (military enlistments, pilots, etc) in some fields (more so with union restrictions), why can't Congress impose such restrictions on itself (and Federal judgeships)? The primary reasons for life expectancy being far longer than it used to be are the decrease in death at childbirth and the better treatments of childhood diseases and accidents.
Nanker Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 I see. So medical and surgical advances in treating heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer haven’t been a factor. I guess virtually eliminating TB, dyptheria, cholera, yellow fever, sepsis had a negligible effect too. Good to know.
Recommended Posts