3 ms·
A 12 year term limit seems reasonable for congress. Ditto the Supreme Court.
by erentz 10y ago
A 12 year term limit seems reasonable for congress. Ditto the Supreme Court.
- AdamJacobMuller 10y agoI'm not sure about the supreme court, but congress absolutely needs term limits.
- tempestn 10y agoThis is a good case for supreme court term limits: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/how-to-fix-supreme-court http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/ho... Since staying in Congress requires repeated re-election, I'm not sure term limits are as important there, personally. There is value to experience, which has to be weighed against the stagnation that can occur.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Viper007Bond 10y ago> Since staying in Congress requires repeated re-election, I'm not sure term limits are as important there, personally. Being president requires being elected but we impose term limits there. It's because it can be very hard to defeat incumbents.
- maxerickson 10y agoPresidents wield vastly more power than members of the house. I sort of doubt that 12 year term limits would do much good, but I guess they wouldn't do much harm either.
- redblacktree 10y agoGreat, so we'll count you as a "yes" for term limits.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 10y agoSure as long as you have term limits for lobbyists, that's great.
- rgbrenner 10y agoso on the supreme court, each president would appoint an average of 6 out of 9 justices during their 8 years. They only serve for an average of 16 years now. does that really need to be made shorter? https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.aspx#faqjustice2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.aspx#faqjustice2
- ptero 10y agoI'm all for lawmakers term limits. I'd be much more careful about Supreme Court. I personally prefer to insulate it from Congress meddling and SC term limits would allow Congress and president to exert too much influence (with 9 judges you get a selection and approval about once a year with a chance to significantly affect key decisions).
- ItendToDisagree 10y agoExcept you don't anymore... Remember Merrick Garland? Yeah. It has become clear that one side will completely stonewall the other side and celebrate by putting in place an extremely political pick (Goursch)
- damm 10y agoSupreme Court has to go. They are a isolated body who is above the Constitution (they act this way). If we want to avoid falling into the trap that Rome did and society slowly (or fast) collapsing we should already be taking steps to counter-act it. The problem is the Media (Television) is very good at rotting away our intelligence. Telling us what to think; who to believe; so until people stop listening to someone else and start listening to their own heart.... we're going to be in a world of hurt Sharing the responsibility and helping each other foster new ideas's to reduce harm would be great. Let's start addressing the food problem; too many children starving and unless you have money... We're the richest country in the world (we say) and yet we have the highest population of people starving with not enough medical care (or dental, or mental) and all the rich want to do is make more money off us to ensure they don't ever have to work. Brilliant! P.S. First generation people who have earned their money work for their money and see the value in it. They often are willing to part with their money to help their neighbor out. It's the second and third generation that our problem; they think they are above us (maybe they are?) and they don't have to play by the same rules as we do. I don't expect a french revolution but I expect something very bad coming. Nothing that Hillary can stop in 2020 by running for president.
- ohyes 10y agoReally need to be careful about this, shorter term limits for congress Supreme Court strengthen the power of the president.