Author Topic: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling  (Read 372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,579
Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« on: June 27, 2014, 04:34:59 PM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/27/judge-set-to-rule-on-term-limits-remap-lawsuit/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Quote
   CHICAGO (AP) - Attorneys say they’ll appeal a Cook County judge’s decision to block a measure calling for term limits from the November ballot.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Mary Mikva ruled Friday that the signature-driven measure didn’t meet constitutional requirements. She ruled the same way for a measure looking to change how Illinois makes its political maps.

The rulings are a setback for groups advocating the measures, including one led by Republican governor candidate Bruce Rauner (ROW’-nur). He’s made term limits a cornerstone of his campaign to unseat Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.


Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 05:24:28 PM »
I am opposed to term limits.  They are simply a means for a particular group to drive somebody out of office when they can't get the votes to do it.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,483
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 10:47:16 PM »
I am opposed to term limits.  They are simply a means for a particular group to drive somebody out of office when they can't get the votes to do it.

Generally speaking I am, too.  However, I do think that the two-term limit for president is good.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2014, 10:57:39 PM »
I have no problem with the limits in place now.  In fact, I wouldn't mind one six-year term for a President.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,483
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2014, 11:07:15 PM »
I have no problem with the limits in place now.  In fact, I wouldn't mind one six-year term for a President.

That's an interesting thought.  What about one eight-year term?

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2014, 11:11:39 PM »
I am opposed to term limits.  They are simply a means for a particular group to drive somebody out of office when they can't get the votes to do it.

Really?  How about term limits for Supreme Court Justices?? 


Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2014, 11:16:31 PM »
Really?  How about term limits for Supreme Court Justices??

Nope.  I'm OK with the current set-up.  I don't want President's to use Supreme Court nominations (and possible candidates) in their campaigns.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,483
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2014, 11:17:08 PM »
Really?  How about term limits for Supreme Court Justices?? 



Term limits, or a mandatory retirement age?

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Attorneys plan appeal on term limits ruling
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2014, 11:54:39 PM »
Really?  How about term limits for Supreme Court Justices??


You would have to change Article III the Constitution because this case would apply to them too. I do not see this case having a bright future.

Quote
Since the Constitution was written in 1787, Article III has declared that “the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior…” A legal scholar, Martin H. Redish, once suggested that the phrase “during good behavior” could be the Constitution’s “most mysterious provision.”


Quote
In promoting ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton equated the “good behavior” idea with life tenure for judges and strongly supported it, writing: “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”


http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/constitution-check-should-supreme-court-justices-have-limits-on-their-time-in-office/
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 11:59:06 PM by Trigger »


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf