Re: the debate between Whiteflame & SatanLucy re: Supreme Court term limits

No, votes are still being assigned. And it has one vote already.

Sorry, I backed out of debate a few months ago [I intend it to be temporary], and the whole visual of debate has changed, and it is frankly more difficult to tell by glance of the debate's cover page what the status is.

fauxlaw wrote:

Sorry, I backed out of debate a few months ago [I intend it to be temporary], and the whole visual of debate has changed, and it is frankly more difficult to tell by glance of the debate's cover page what the status is.

Thank you for this feedback. I will try and come up with a fix for this. Is there anything else that is more difficult?

No, otherwise, it's fine. Just a matter of unfamiliarity on my part.

That's called personally-imposed term limitation, and, at that rate of personal dismissal, there's no need to amend the Constitution to impose term limits.

The reason they almost always leave on their own is because they become too old to do the job effectively and/or would rather live out their final days in peace. That’s really not an argument against term limits.

I agree that we should be insulating justices from political pressure, I also recognize term limits can create another issue; justices using the court to position themselves for ambitions after they leave the court. My biggest issue with lifetime appointments is that creates an incentive to nominate younger judges just so they can affect the courts direction for decades, that needs to be stopped or strongly discouraged somehow. My solution would be to impose a minimum age, say 50 or 55, along with a generous retirement package after say year 15 or 20. Something like that would address most of my issues anyway.

The reason they almost always leave on their own is because they become too old to do the job effectively and/or would rather live out their final days in peace.

Really? So, Sherrod Brown, Jason Chaffits, Joe Manchin, were/are old men? In fact, there are 50 members of Congress [House & Senate] who are not seeking re-election in 2026. That's 11% of the total Congress that have seats eligible for re-election in this cycle [about 468 members]. Yes, some are old, but many are leaving who are still relatively young, not yet ready to live their "final days." This is the highest number of Congress not seeking re-election, ever. Try again, with facts, this time.

By the way, I did not note it, but will here: even though I am inclined to the idea that the Court does not and should not need term limits [I interpret Article III as already imposing it], I thought your vote analysis was just grand. Well done!

Thank you

Really? So, Sherrod Brown, Jason Chaffits, Joe Manchin, were/are old men? In fact, there are 50 members of Congress [House & Senate] who are not…

If you had bothered to read my post you would have recognized that I was talking about the Supreme Court, and them being too old to do the job wasn’t my argument, it was a response to yours.

Yes, your post was referring to SCOTUS. Is that the only government body for which discussion is had re: term limits? No. I expanded on your subject. Excuse me all to hell for expansion. I guess that's disallowed by some in an "open forum."

Excuse me all to hell for expansion.

Expanding on the discussion and strawmanning what someone else argued are two different things.

Two things. Maybe more, because both expansion and strawmen may be motivated by multiple perspectives. Still, an open forum. Unless you disagree. That was my #12 argument, yet ignored. Easy to do when fixated on limitation.

Two things. Maybe more, because both expansion and strawmen may be motivated by multiple perspectives. Still, an open forum. Unless you disagree. That was my #12 argument, yet ignored. Easy to do when fixated on limitation.