The Call For Term Limits?

I find it very interesting that the party that basically likes to plant it’s seeds and become squatters in Washington DC is starting to murmur about term limits. Oh, not term limits in Congress mind you! No…liberal Democrats are starting to call for term limits for…wait for it…wait for it…

The Supreme Court!

The high court has always had lifetime appointments with approval from the US Senate on nominees. But since Donald Trump has already had two nominees take their seats, and swing the court from a 4-4-1 balance to a 5-4 conservative balance. With the prospects of a reelection looming, and a Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both well up there in age, Democrats are starting to realize they could lose the high court for a generation!

We’ve heard rumors swirl for a couple of years that we should add more justices to the Supreme Court. We should get eleven, maybe even fifteen justices! Well, that’s not going to happen any time soon, though it would be perfectly legal to do so. In fact, Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to get that done when the Supremes shot him down time and time again for his illegal and unconstitutional activities in ending the Great Depression. Actually what ended it was World War II if anybody researches history.

So, with adding seats to the court out of the question, the issue then becomes trying to limit the damage. It’s pretty evident that the next two people to go would be Ginsburg, who recently spent a weekend in the hospital (again), and Breyer, just due to their age. But right behind them. Both are in their 80’s. But Clarence Thomas is 71. Samuel Alito is the spring chicken at 69.

And ever since Harry Reid lit the nuclear option in the Senate, making it possible for judges to be appointed with only 50 votes (which was expanded under the GOP to include Supreme Court Justices), you no longer need a super majority to put someone on the bench. Now, if something were to happen to Ginsburg, or Breyer, there would be a political cat fight the likes of which you have never seen! And there isn’t anything short of re-taking the Senate that the Democrats could do to stop it. Oh, they’ll try, and they’ll make the Kavanaugh confirmation look like a Bible Study group. But in the end, whomever would get nominated, unless there’s something in their past that would stop them, would likely be approved!

Term limits are a great idea for Congress. We already have them for the Executive Branch, but to have them for the Judiciary isn’t a smart idea. It’s like trying to do away with the Electoral College because you lost an election. Dumb! IF Congress were to decide to change the Constitution (which would require the states to go along with it), and make the Supreme Court a term-limited body, they should also change the rules so they themselves are term-limited (which would never happen). I’ve been a fan of that for a very long time. That one will never happen…there’s too much corruption in “the Boy’s Club” to allow that part of the swamp to be drained.

But term limits in the Supreme Court, or in the federal court system is just a bad idea being foisted by a group of folks who don’t like the scenery of the future that lies in front of them! It should never, ever be allowed to happen regardless who’s in charge of the high court!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

7 thoughts on “The Call For Term Limits?

  1. I think a good start heading down that road would be to reverse the 17th Amendment and, once again, have the Legislators (i.e. Representatives) of each state select their states Senators as was intended by our Founders. Senator’s no longer owe their allegiance to the State they represent and keep on winning re-election because they can simply make promises of free-stuff to the citizens, who will in turn vote them back into office!

    As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think I would rather see an age limit rather than a term limit!?!?

    For GOD and Country

    Liked by 1 person

    1. While I would be in favor of that, I don’t think you’d find much support to reverse the 17th. Too many people would view it as a way to further politicize an already over-charged environment, and the dumber folks among us would see it as a way to “take the power from the people”. But I agree with you (and the Founding Fathers) that it never should have been changed in the first place. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the difference between the House and the Senate and why they were set up like they were.


  2. Part of the checks and balances is that each branch should also have the integrity and responsibility to check themselves. Regarding the Supreme Court as one ages and health declines it is incumbent on a justice to resign. Believe it or not the world goes on without us.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s