Dems introduce bill requiring Term limits for Supreme Court

[bullitpdq68]

I have not looked real closely at the whole bill says something about 18 years, but I can honestly say not ruling it out, I honestly don't think they should be lifetime appointmensts anyway and honestly for many of the reason they have mentioned, I can see high courts becoming insulated and out of touch with the will of the people.

However who else sees the hypocrisy in this bill?

They want to impose Term limits so that the court stays in touch with the people. However why not write the bill that will impose terms not only on the Court but the house and Senate? We need a rotation of legislation these were never meant to be life long jobs.

That is part of the problem now? Polls today show that Americans feel that our legislative body is out of touch and corrupt with what the average American needs both Dems and Pubs its the one thing we all agree on! Many Polls show that we feel that our system of government no longer works for the average American, I have to think that adding Term limites would go a long way in improving that?

Democrats introduce bill requiring term limits for US supreme court justices

The measure would also provide for an appointment every two years but any such reforms are vigorously opposed by Republicans

www.theguardian.com

 

[Toots_mcgee]

Reps can be tossed out by voters every two years.

Senators can be tossed out every 6.

Therein lies the difference.

I would prefer a mandatory retirement age for congress.

Mayor Pete has proposed an excellent plan to expand the court, make it less political and balanced. It limits the years and requires a vote by the judges to be added to the court.

 

[revno]

Missouri's house and senate have term limits Not the most outstanding example of term limits, but maybe it's a work in progress?

 

[kaskaskiakid]

Polls show 70-80% Americans favor term limits for Congress and have favored for many years. I wonder why Congress doesn't act on the will of the people? LOL

Regarding the SC, there definitely should a mandatory retirement age.

Our forefathers never envisioned people living much longer today and never intended for politics to be a career.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Polls show 70-80% Americans favor term limits for Congress and have favored for many years. I wonder why Congress doesn't act on the will of the people? LOL

Regarding the SC, there definitely should a mandatory retirement age.

Our forefathers never envisioned people living much longer today and never intended for politics to be a career.

same reason MO GOP never follows the will of the people when we do petitions then special issues at election time:

They don't have to and their voters are too stupid to care.

 

[bullitpdq68]

same reason MO GOP never follows the will of the people when we do petitions then special issues at election time:

They don't have to and their voters are too stupid to care.

Wow you said it, that is the thing I don't understand Missouri will pass or even vote down special ballots, yet they all keep thier jobs? Based on not doing the will of the people?

 

[bullitpdq68]

Reps can be tossed out by voters every two years.

Senators can be tossed out every 6.

Therein lies the difference.

I would prefer a mandatory retirement age for congress.

Mayor Pete has proposed an excellent plan to expand the court, make it less political and balanced. It limits the years and requires a vote by the judges to be added to the court.

https://www.cmu.edu/ips/research/ips-journal/ips-journal-online/cirp-9-incumbent-advantage-in-the-senate.pdf

But Senators don't get tossed out, they usally stay way to long because they can. Over 80% of incumbents win thier race that is why we have 70 and 80 year olds running the country and that is an issue.

While the presidential election routinely receives the lion’s share of press coverage, Senate elections are pivotal given the important role that senators play in the functioning of the country. Senate races are often predetermined, with over 80 percent of incumbents reclaiming their seats since 1964.

1 While this often makes Senate races less interesting to follow than presidential races, it raises important questions regarding the senatorial election process. Why do incumbents win so frequently, and is it actually what the American people want? This article discusses several factors that play into Senate incumbency rates, exploring why incumbents are so successful and what might be done to level the playing field for challenging candidates. Incumbent Advantage
1: Name Recognition The first and most obvious advantage incumbent officials have is name recognition. Incumbent senators are more likely to be known to their constituents by name, if not by policy, than any challengers. Incumbents are able to access constituent mailing lists and have a direct line to local media that challengers do not, making it is much easier for incumbents to ensure they are seen and heard from throughout a campaign.
2 Thus, they have an advantage in obtaining the votes of constituents who do not actively familiarize themselves with candidates. Incumbent Advantage 2: Campaign War Chests Raising funds to mount a statewide campaign is a massive operational undertaking and increasingly daunting as campaign expenditures have skyrocketed in recent years. In the eighteen months prior to the November 2018 elections (including special elections in Mississippi and Alabama), Senate candidates spent $353.2 million – an average of nearly $1.5 million over 237 campaigns.3 Incumbent are usually able to raise money more easily than challenging candidates. Incumbents are also more likely to be funded by political action committees (PACs), labor groups, and single-issue groups. Even ideological groups, which are more likely to give money to challenging candidates than other donating organizations, only gave 23 percent of their total budget to challengers in 2018, compared to nearly 58 percent of their budget for incumbents.4