Loki Loc: Georgia

I have long supported term limits for all three branches of government. The election of Donald Trump, although a good thing from my point of view, has brought this into the limelight, particularly in relation to the Federal Judiciary. For those of you who flunked both Civics and lunch in junior high school, the president nominates Federal judges, including the SCOTUS. These nominees are then confirmed by the Senate alone, which means by the party that controls the Senate. All Federal Judgeships are lifetime appointments. If a judge is not ideologically in line with the president and party in power, he or she probably won't even be nominated. much less confirmed. This has led to a politicized Federal Judiciary that was intended to be a safeguard against political machinations.

That means that President Trump will nominate conservative Justices to the SCOTUS, to be confirmed by a Republican Senate. Trump will nominate one, probably two, and possibly three Justices. This will mean a conservative court for the next twenty years, barring untimely deaths such as Scalia's. This is the most important thing about a Trump win, I think. All the other hot button issues are important, but this one is long term, well beyond the current one or two terms.
This is why I support term limits for the Federal Judiciary. While Liberals tend to abuse the process more than conservatives when it comes to nominating and confirming political puppets, both sides are guilty. These lifetime appointments are in our favor now, but twenty years down the road, the pendulum may have swung. It will eventually, it always does.
Term limits on the Federal Judiciary would ameliorate this situation.
Anyone have any coherent thoughts on this?

Rivers

I flunked lunch in school, so I had to look it up.

How the Confirmation Process Works

1) The confirmation process begins when the President selects a nominee for a vacant judgeship. Traditionally, the President selects a nominee in consultation with the Senators who represent the state in which the judge will serve. Senators typically have their own methods of evaluating potential nominees, and can signal their approval or disapproval of a nominee through the blue slip process.

2) The President then refers the nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee evaluates the nominee by gathering information, running a background check, and reviewing the record and qualifications of the nominee.

3) The Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. Witnesses present testimony on the nominee. Some of the witnesses favor and others oppose the nomination. The nominee also answers questions from the Committee. Senators who oppose a nominee can attempt to delay or derail a nomination by requesting additional information or additional time as a hearing approaches.

4) The Judiciary Committee votes on whether to report the nominee to the full Senate. If the Committee does report the nominee, they can submit the nomination with a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all. Senators who oppose the nomination can attempt to delay a nomination by using procedural tactics to prevent a committee vote.

5) The full Senate has the opportunity to debate the nomination. The Senate debates until a Senator asks for unanimous consent to end debate and move to a vote on the nominee. If unanimous consent is granted, the Senate votes on the nominee, with a majority vote required for confirmation. Any Senator can refuse to grant unanimous consent. This situation is known as a hold.

6) If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation. If fewer than 51 Senators support cloture, debate continues and a confirmation vote cannot occur. This is known as a filibuster. Prior to the November 2013 Senate rules change, all cloture motions required 60 votes to pass. Now, only cloture motions for legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court require 60 votes.

7) Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge.

IMO, the 60 votes are going to be tough to get with these Democrats we currently have. I don't think they are going to budge. Now, if McConnell has a pair, he could pull a (Reid) and institute the nuclear option needing only a simple majority. We'll see. Anyway you look at it, we're going to be stuck with 8 judges for quite a while, I think.

maureenthannon

I didn't know that they still teach civics classes in the public schools. Most people today seem clueless onhow the government operates. I'm glad the Supreme Court seats will be chosen by a conservative. Term limits makes perfecdt sense for all branches. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is why another Clinton or Obama White House would be deadly.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I think that Mitch "I'm Obama's Bitch" McConnell is enough of both a coward and a political weasel to see the writing on the wall and use the option. He can be replaced, and if he pisses off enough people, he will be. John Boehner resigned.


While this link refers to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, the rules remain:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/12/how_do_you_get_rid_of_the_senate_majority_leader.html


Very good post. Thanks

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

Putting term limits on Supreme court judges means every change in presidents can bring a change in Judges when their term is up. We will be in a severe recession before Trumps term is over.. This will bring a regime change and a difference in judges.

Rivers

In recession????? Not hardly, that is if you know anything about economics. If Hillary had won, and she instituted her minimum wage hike and her tax plan, I would agree with you.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

You'll see what happens when we get into a trade war with the rest of the world

CDM Loc: Florida

A great question. And a sad commentary that most people in this country do not realize the this to be the most important element of this or any election. They think presidents stop influencing the shape of the country when they leave office.

Of course Madison, Monroe, Franklin, et al argued fervently in favor of term limits for congressional seats. They argued this limitation on time served is necessary “to refresh” the congress with periodic frequency to ensure a contemporary nature in these bodies. A secondary advantage of course is the disruption of the formation of cronyism. Dare we say that had term limits been imposed from the git-go we might not have fallen to the depths of political depravity we see today? Anyway;

Considering the foregoing then, it has never made a lick of sense to me that the founders would argue to place limitations on the congress that would in effect disrupt corruption of the system (an argument they ultimately lost) and then turn around and invent a court appointed by a sitting president, a biased if not corruptible entity in it's own right, to be approved by a majority driven congress all in the faith that these nine men and women would be unbiased if not incorruptible? The SCOTUS is a game of biasing and thereby corrupt in it's own right.

I second the argument that term limits should be a constitutional requirement for all elected public office and the SCOTUS. I would further argue that in the absence of term limits there is (obviously) an ever increasing danger in the appointment of these people by a biased president and congress. Might we not more closely achieve balance if these people were selected by the people they actually exist to serve? Elected in the cycle for example?

However one views this, it's a worthwhile argument if our aim is to preserve the nuclear elements of the constitution; something I am convinced all career politicians, career being the operative here, and without question the Left are bent on destroying.

A related question is who will do it? Who will foment the change? Certainly not the people inside the beltway ... Would it not be truly historic to get it in front of us for a vote?

Rivers

Trade war???? Won't happen.

CDM Loc: Florida

"if McConnell has a pair" ... The question is not if McConnell has a pair. The question is, a pair of what? Embroidered silk boxer shorts? Yes. What one would expect to find in them? No way. Mitchy baby is the embodiment of the degenerate parasite coward that term limits would expunge automatically.

Your probably right about being stuck with 8 justices for some time yet.

CDM Loc: Florida

Hence my suggestion that justices should be elected by the people cyclically rather than recommended by biased presidents and approved (or not) by lop-sided, biased congresses.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

Trump wants huge tariffs on foreign made goods. In turn huge tariffs will be placed on ours. you'll see

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

much like we elect circuit and district court judges . You have something there.

Rivers

Yep, we'll see. It won't turn out like you think though.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I would disagree because McConnell is a spineless weasel. He will bend to pressure, with a Republican White House and Congress, just as he bent to pressure from a Democrat White House. McConnell is a tool; and a willing one. Kentucky owes the rest of the country big time for allowing this SOB out of his kennel.