? But, that is only if a Democratic president is in office. Since a republican president is in off, the McConnell rule does not apply.
Justice Ginsburg will never allow Trump to name her replacement. Not that anyone could really replace Notorious RBG.
I think that was in reference to: If something happens to RBG during this election year. Meaning, McConnel used the election during the 2016 to not confirm the opened position.
agree, but its always been try and get an advantage with justices regardless of parties. Thats why I would favor an amendment to keep it equal and put term limits on it.
I know what it was in reference too. He did that because Obsms was president and nominating liberal judges. McConnell was stalling in hopes a republican would win the White House and conservative judges could be nominated to be confirmed. If something happened to RBG, you can bet Trump would immediately nominate someone and the senate would rush to confirm him/her.
I've been a proponent for political position terms limits for some time now...and yes, it should apply to the SC as well.
Well, judges are not politicians. All Article III judges have lifetime terms. You need and want experience in the courts. It should not be a turnstyle. It's honestly hard to find good judges and to term the judges out is I think a bad idea. We have elections for Congress and Americans could vote out the incumbents every election, but they rarely do. So, as much as people say they want term limits, that doesn't really show in the ballot box.
Agreed, plus you don't want judges to rule based on keeping their jobs. Lifetime appointments are there to make sure the judges will rule on law and their convictions.
I'm not arguing for it, but you could have, say, a single, non-renewable 10-year term. That would eliminate the issue you bring up. barfo
So a presidential two term appointment basically? I mean that could be debated. There have been some social changing rulings by very brave Justices, Roe vs Wade for example, that I would argue never possibly happening if a judge were on a term. Even one at 10 years.
Why do you think that wouldn't happen if they were on a non-renewable term? Since they could never be re-appointed, they wouldn't have to worry about the optics or popularity.
Because the Presidents at that time would be more radical with their choices. Meaning, the Administration that possibly was against Roe vs Wade can appoint a judge to reverse that ruling. Basically, each administration gets to replace an entire Supreme Court during his or her’s office.
