3 ms·

I would venture to guess you've never lived in NY State. Between Sheldon Silver & Joseph Bruno you had two corrupt individuals controlling the state legislatur

I would venture to guess you've never lived in NY State. Between Sheldon Silver & Joseph Bruno you had two corrupt individuals controlling the state legislature for almost 20 years. If term limits are good enough for the President, they're good enough for Congress.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> If term limits are good enough for the President, they're good enough for Congress. Term limits were added for the President because Congress got grumpy that FDR kept winning. It was pure partisan politics. Without them, we might've wound up with a third Obama term instead of Trump.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. He had an inordinate amount of power that we are very lucky he used mostly benignly. The two term only precedent was a defacto rule that only became written because it was broken. It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. Which failed, and could easily be attempted by a one-term president too. I'm not sure what that has to do with term limits. > It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too. It was enacted by a Republican-controlled congress after FDR's death.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      I don't believe it's healthy for democracy. FDR was exceptional but a large part of why he was reelected was because of ongoing events. In any other situation he would not have. The American people after his death wisely decided it wasn't good for someone to have power for 13+ years. That turns the office into something imperial. Packing the court was an abuse of power that he was only able to attempt because he was popular, and popularity isn't always the best way to pick leaders. Other incredible presidents didn't get three terms (Roosevelt comes to find). Obama has at best been a good president. Does he really deserve 12 years? Is he more deserving of that than all other presidents but FDR? Historically, no. And without the rule, he'd get it by default as he's obviously better than Trump and incumbent advantage and all that. Without term limits we're just waiting for the bizarro Nixon in Watchmen to show up...and given time it would happen. Maybe Trump would be it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. In his second term. So, hardly a dangerous protection re against by term limits. > He had an inordinate amount of power As the failure of the court packing scheme demonstrates, he didn't have an "inordinate amount of power" personally, he was just, on other issues, successful at convincing others with power that his preferred approaches were desirable.
lightbyte 10y ago
The problem is not that you can elect those two individuals repeatedly, it's that their constituents either like them enough to re-elect, or their challengers have some sort of disadvantage when running.
maxerickson 10y ago
I live in Michigan which has term limits for legislators. I don't think they have done any good for the state. They tend to hand more power to the executive and parties, neither of which is a particularly good thing. I do think that there should be term limits for high executive positions though. They are different than legislative positions, as they involve a good deal more individual power.

ceejayoz 10y ago

> If term limits are good enough for the President, they're good enough for Congress. Term limits were added for the President because Congress got grumpy that FDR kept winning. It was pure partisan politics. Without them, we might've wound up with a third Obama term instead of Trump.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. He had an inordinate amount of power that we are very lucky he used mostly benignly. The two term only precedent was a defacto rule that only became written because it was broken. It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. Which failed, and could easily be attempted by a one-term president too. I'm not sure what that has to do with term limits. > It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too. It was enacted by a Republican-controlled congress after FDR's death.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    I don't believe it's healthy for democracy. FDR was exceptional but a large part of why he was reelected was because of ongoing events. In any other situation he would not have. The American people after his death wisely decided it wasn't good for someone to have power for 13+ years. That turns the office into something imperial. Packing the court was an abuse of power that he was only able to attempt because he was popular, and popularity isn't always the best way to pick leaders. Other incredible presidents didn't get three terms (Roosevelt comes to find). Obama has at best been a good president. Does he really deserve 12 years? Is he more deserving of that than all other presidents but FDR? Historically, no. And without the rule, he'd get it by default as he's obviously better than Trump and incumbent advantage and all that. Without term limits we're just waiting for the bizarro Nixon in Watchmen to show up...and given time it would happen. Maybe Trump would be it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. In his second term. So, hardly a dangerous protection re against by term limits. > He had an inordinate amount of power As the failure of the court packing scheme demonstrates, he didn't have an "inordinate amount of power" personally, he was just, on other issues, successful at convincing others with power that his preferred approaches were desirable.

lightbyte 10y ago

The problem is not that you can elect those two individuals repeatedly, it's that their constituents either like them enough to re-elect, or their challengers have some sort of disadvantage when running.

maxerickson 10y ago

I live in Michigan which has term limits for legislators. I don't think they have done any good for the state. They tend to hand more power to the executive and parties, neither of which is a particularly good thing. I do think that there should be term limits for high executive positions though. They are different than legislative positions, as they involve a good deal more individual power.