WOW: Libs Want To Amend The Constitution To Protect Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[rangerrebew]

WOW: Libs Want To Amend The Constitution To Protect Ruth Bader Ginsburg
December 27, 2018 Martin


Liberals are now arguing in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to protect Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Following recent news that Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous nodules, it appears liberals are worried about President Donald Trump nominating another conservative to the nation’s highest court.

Ginsburg, who is 85-years-old, is the oldest Justice on the Supreme Court.

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/wow-libs-want-to-amend-the-constitution-to-protect-ruth-bader-ginsburg/?utm_source=patriots&utm_medium=email

[txradioguy]

By the time a Constitutional Amendment wound it's way through the process she'd be dead.

[Night Hides Not]

By the time a Constitutional Amendment wound it's way through the process she'd be dead.

I think most of us would be dead, too. LOL

[skeeter]

No need for a constitutional amendment - Ginsberg is about to term limit herself without it.

[Polly Ticks]

I fail to see how amending the Constitution to set term limits for Supreme Court Justices would do anything to "protect Ruth Bader Ginsburg".

[Wingnut]

Passing that amendment would be as successful as when the ERA was was ratified by by three-fourths of the member states with-in the set time frame.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The reason there are lifetime appointments for judges is to sidestep the situations to wait out a judge whose appointment is ending in order to get a more favorable opinion.  Should never happen.

If we ever did wish a limit to a term, it should be on the basis of age rather than the length of a term as older judges will invariably be less competent mentally and physically, which is RBG's case.

[libertybele]

By the time a Constitutional Amendment wound it's way through the process she'd be dead.

Indeed.  I always wonder if the liberal left actually thinks through the issues before they open their mouths.

[Wingnut]

Indeed.  I always wonder if the liberal left actually thinks through the issues before they open their mouths.

If they did they wouldn't be a liberal. 

[libertybele]

I fail to see how amending the Constitution to set term limits for Supreme Court Justices would do anything to "protect Ruth Bader Ginsburg".

@Polly Ticks don't waste your time trying to understand the logic of the liberal leftist mental midgets.

[Polly Ticks]

@Polly Ticks don't waste your time trying to understand the logic of the liberal leftist mental midgets.

... or clickbait headlines.
 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I fail to see how amending the Constitution to set term limits for Supreme Court Justices would do anything to "protect Ruth Bader Ginsburg".

It's a click bait garbage article. Btw, conservative fools have been advocating this for decades... without thinking of the consequences.

[txradioguy]

The reason there are lifetime appointments for judges is to sidestep the situations to wait out a judge whose appointment is ending in order to get a more favorable opinion.  Should never happen.

If we ever did wish a limit to a term, it should be on the basis of age rather than the length of a term as older judges will invariably be less competent mentally and physically, which is RBG's case.

The problem is that those lifetime appointments make those justices immune to completely boneheaded decisions and unconstitutional rulings.  They believe they are untouchable and unaccountable for their decisions.

At some point when you're an 85 year old judge in poor health you should step aside.   She's simply hanging on hoping there's a new President in 2020 so someone even more radically liberal than she is gets appointed to her seat.

That does the country and the courts no good.  Justice is not served for anyone with that kind of selfishness.

[txradioguy]

It's a click bait garbage article. Btw, conservative fools have been advocating this for decades... without thinking of the consequences.

Do you think some of the assinine decisions at the appellate and SCOTUS level would have been made had those justices had to face the voting public 5-10 years down the road?

If term limits are good for politicians why not for judges...especially as political as a federal judgeship has become these days.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Do you think some of the assinine decisions at the appellate and SCOTUS level would have been made had those justices had to face the voting public 5-10 years down the road?

If term limits are good for politicians why not for judges...especially as political as a federal judgeship has become these days.

Judges should not be politicians, period.

[txradioguy]

Judges should not be politicians, period.

And yet here we are in 2018 and every ruling at the federal level is political.

[libertybele]

The problem is that those lifetime appointments make those justices immune to completely boneheaded decisions and unconstitutional rulings.  They believe they are untouchable and unaccountable for their decisions.

At some point when you're an 85 year old judge in poor health you should step aside.   She's simply hanging on hoping there's a new President in 2020 so someone even more radically liberal than she is gets appointed to her seat.

That does the country and the courts no good.  Justice is not served for anyone with that kind of selfishness.

Agreed.  I'm not so sure time is on her side, but the DEMS will be doing everything that can to ensure that Trump is a one term president and that they are in control of the WH in 2020. 

[libertybele]

And yet here we are in 2018 and every ruling at the federal level is political.

 

[libertybele]

Interesting.  RBG was released from the hospital on Christmas Day.  She has expressed that she wants to be back on the bench by Jan. 7.  She's allowing her body roughly 3 weeks healing time??  IMHO that's just plain foolish and asinine.   It seems like she feels she has to continue to prove what great health she is in; after all she's the notorious RBG.  My hunch is coming back so soon after surgery at 85 is going to cost her BIGLY. 

[Fishrrman]

I didn't read the source article, but does this have something to do with term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court justices?

GREAT idea.

Back when the Constitution was written, "a lifetime" was... what.... 65-70 years of age on average?

So, a senior judge nominated at, say, age 45 to serve as a Supreme Court justice might be expected to have a term of 25 years, perhaps 30.

So...that's what I reckon federal judgeships should be -- a term of 20 years, with the option for the president to "re-nominate" for an extension of 10 additional years, subject to a quick (i.e., no "hearings") up-or-down confirmation vote by the Senate.

This would apply to all federal judges, trial level, appellate level, Supreme Court as well.

Of course, a Constitutional amendment would be required.
I would include a provision excluding all currently-serving judges and justices so long as they continue to occupy their current positions.

If this is what the democrat-communists want, by all means, give it to 'em!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The problem is that those lifetime appointments make those justices immune to completely boneheaded decisions and unconstitutional rulings.  They believe they are untouchable and unaccountable for their decisions.

At some point when you're an 85 year old judge in poor health you should step aside.   She's simply hanging on hoping there's a new President in 2020 so someone even more radically liberal than she is gets appointed to her seat.

That does the country and the courts no good.  Justice is not served for anyone with that kind of selfishness.

I agree. The responsibility resides in Congress to remove judges no longer competent or less than sufficiently able to execute their responsibilities.

Sadly, Congress is less dependable than judges to actually behave the way the Constitution intended.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Agreed.  I'm not so sure time is on her side, but the DEMS will be doing everything that can to ensure that Trump is a one term president and that they are in control of the WH in 2020.

By definition, that means they will not nominate Hillary once again.

To do otherwise would be the same as the GOP nominating Romney once again.

[240B]

Back when the Constitution was written, "a lifetime" was... what.... 65-70 years of age on average?

That is incorrect. The average lifespan in the late 1700s was around 35. A 50 year old was a very old elderly person. There is no way the founding fathers could have predicted politicians trying to stay in office for 100 years or more. Political office was necessarily 'temporary'. Because life itself was temporary in those days.

As medicine and lifespans continue to increase, in 50 years and without term limits, a politician with an insatiable lust for power at any costs could theoretically stay in office indefinitely. As more and more of these corrupt parasites come into office, eventually elections will never change anything. The same people will just keep getting reelected over and over forever. 20% of Congress is like that now, and the percentage will only increase over time.

[Smokin Joe]

The problem is that those lifetime appointments make those justices immune to completely boneheaded decisions and unconstitutional rulings.  They believe they are untouchable and unaccountable for their decisions.

At some point when you're an 85 year old judge in poor health you should step aside.   She's simply hanging on hoping there's a new President in 2020 so someone even more radically liberal than she is gets appointed to her seat.

That does the country and the courts no good.  Justice is not served for anyone with that kind of selfishness.

In theory, at least, they can be impeached.
What I'd love is the ability to hold recall elections for Congressmen. Maybe they'd give a damn some time other than the last three months before elections.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is incorrect. The average lifespan in the late 1700s was around 35. A 50 year old was a very old elderly person. There is no way the founding fathers could have predicted politicians trying to stay in office for 100 years or more. Political office was necessarily 'temporary'. Because life itself was temporary in those days.

As medicine and lifespans continue to increase, in 50 years and without term limits, a politician with an insatiable lust for power at any costs could theoretically stay in office indefinitely. As more and more of these corrupt parasites come into office, eventually elections will never change anything. The same people will just keep getting reelected over and over forever. 20% of Congress is like that now, and the percentage will only increase over time.

By definition, an appointed judge is not a politician. He is an arbitrator of the law.

Besides the obvious need for impartiality and awareness of the law, a mandatory requirement for nomination of a judge should be the absence of any political bent.