PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on February 02, 2019, 06:34:12 AM
-
For politicians AND judges?
I used to believe that term limits were best enforced at the ballot box. But when something just doesn't work, you have to try something else.
As soon as a politician takes office, they find out that they love the power and prestige. They also find out that in order to keep that power and prestige, they have to begin fund raising immediately, and that they need the backing of the party.
Keeping their job becomes their job.
Can anyone that disagrees try to show where I am wrong?
-
NO, I don't object to term limits! At this point I will try anything to shut down this Career Politician bullsh*t! We can no longer hold them accountable, like tar and feathering them, so force them OUT!
-
Here is what my 2nd term congress man told me when I asked about Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Rep. Francis Rooney proposed a Constitutional amendment on Thursday that would impose term limits on members of both houses of Congress.
As you know, the 22nd Amendment limits the President to two terms, each term lasting four years. Today, however, there are no congressional term limits. Just a few weeks into the 115th Congress, seven different resolutions have been introduced in the House and Senate to impose some form of limit on the amount of time a Member may serve in Congress. These resolutions have been referred to the Judiciary Committee in their respective chambers for further review and consideration.
Like you, many Americans are tired of seeing "career politicians" in office. While term-limits may appeal to some as a means to break this cycle and bring new faces and ideas into Congress, it is important to remember that the United States Constitution already provides the American people with a chance to review and even replace their current representative every two years. In this country, the people have the power to choose their representatives. That is the way the Constitution is set up and that is the way it should be.
-
OK, want to keep it to just voting as a form of "Term Limits". Then deduct 10% of their votes due to the INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE. Incumbents of both parties use their party's power, and name recognition to their advantage. It is a HUGE advantage. They use YOUR tax dollars to buy favors from supporters while in office. It is a total scam.
-
Plus, voting doesn’t work. I’m in Washington State. King County (Seattle) keeps it blue.
So yes, term limits are the only answer to career politicians.
-
Here is what my 2nd term congress man told me when I asked about Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Rep. Francis Rooney proposed a Constitutional amendment on Thursday that would impose term limits on members of both houses of Congress.
Wow. Well it's not working. People will keep voting for them as long as they keep their constituents happy. Jesse Helms was the perfect example. His staff was set up to serve his people. If you had a problem with any government agency, send him a letter and someone on his staff would fix it for you. He fixed something for us twice, and hell yeah I kept voting for him. Term limits is the only fix.
-
If by "judges" you include supreme court justices, I object to traditional term limits for them.
-
If by "judges" you include supreme court justices, I object to traditional term limits for them.
I agree with you on that.
-
If by "judges" you include supreme court justices, I object to traditional term limits for them.
I especially mean Supreme Court justices.
What do you mean by “traditional”. I might agree to some non traditional limits. Like 20 years, or maybe a 75 year age limit. But there should be some way besides impeachment or death.
-
I especially mean Supreme Court justices.
What do you mean by “traditional”. I might agree to some non traditional limits. Like 20 years, or maybe a 75 year age limit. But there should be some way besides impeachment or death.
I think there needs to be mandatory cognitive screening after age 65.
-
I especially mean Supreme Court justices.
What do you mean by “traditional”. I might agree to some non traditional limits. Like 20 years, or maybe a 75 year age limit. But there should be some way besides impeachment or death.
Justices need to be shielded from retribution for unpopular decisions. So I think term limits as we usually think of them are not appropriate. But I could certainly be swayed on an age limit or something like that. Or as Rush says, cognitive screening.
-
For politicians AND judges?
I used to believe that term limits were best enforced at the ballot box. But when something just doesn't work, you have to try something else.
As soon as a politician takes office, they find out that they love the power and prestige. They also find out that in order to keep that power and prestige, they have to begin fund raising immediately, and that they need the backing of the party.
Keeping their job becomes their job.
Can anyone that disagrees try to show where I am wrong?
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, Cruz’s proposed amendments are complete nonstarters because politicians will NEVER vote to reduce their power and shorten the gravy train. Any amendment has to bypass congress and come from the states in an Article V convention of the states.
I also think there’s a deep fear of the unknown by the electorate, and even most people who support term limits claim to like their OWN rep and don’t want to replace them, just the other guy.
Jim Sensenbrenner is my representative. He’s a pretty good, solid conservative from the most conservative congressional district in the state. I had an argument with him at a town hall a few years ago when he was a big backer of swamp dweller John Fucking Boehner. After I got done making a statement, he said “People like you and Sean Hannity are doing more damage to the Republican Party than anything the democrats can do.” Or something to that effect.
Yet he has been in the House since 1979! He never received less than 61% of the votes in 20 elections. 5 of those were unopposed.
I would vote him out in a flash if there was a good opponent that I could support, but don’t want to fire him if a democrat could slip in there. THAT’s the power of incumbency and that’s why we need term limits.
-
Justices need to be shielded from retribution for unpopular decisions. So I think term limits as we usually think of them are not appropriate. But I could certainly be swayed on an age limit or something like that. Or as Rush says, cognitive screening.
This is the main reason I'm not sold on term limits for federal judgeships. Judges and justices need to be free of the political process so they rule based on the Constitution, not a political objective. I realize that's not how it really works anymore, but that's the theory behind why they have lifetime appointments.
-
OK, want to keep it to just voting as a form of "Term Limits". Then deduct 10% of their votes due to the INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE. Incumbents of both parties use their party's power, and name recognition to their advantage. It is a HUGE advantage. They use YOUR tax dollars to buy favors from supporters while in office. It is a total scam.
This isn't an actual proposal of yours, is it?
-
Plus, voting doesn’t work. I’m in Washington State. King County (Seattle) keeps it blue.
So yes, term limits are the only answer to career politicians.
Really? Then how'd we get Trump? He was supposed to lose. Hillary had it in the bag. That's what we were told. There was no reason to even vote since it was a done deal already.
The House just flipped, and at some point it will flip back again. The Senate will flip at some point as well. Voting does work.
-
This isn't an actual proposal of yours, is it?
I'd like to see Term Limits, or some form of removal of the advantage an incumbent has of getting re-elected over, and over where it is a thirty year or more career. No I am not really advocating for making votes not count unless the votes can be proven as fraudulent or by illegal aliens which we all know is happening.
-
I'd like to see Term Limits, or some form of removal of the advantage an incumbent has of getting re-elected over, and over where it is a thirty year or more career. No I am not really advocating for making votes not count unless the votes can be proven as fraudulent or by illegal aliens which we all know is happening.
Fair enough.
-
We need a better class of constituents.
Then we'll get a better class of representatives.
-
We need a better class of constituents.
Then we'll get a better class of representatives.
Really? Then how'd we get Trump? He was supposed to lose. Hillary had it in the bag. That's what we were told. There was no reason to even vote since it was a done deal already.
The House just flipped, and at some point it will flip back again. The Senate will flip at some point as well. Voting does work.
I guess I’m thinking of the fraud and the blatant moves by the left to make it easier for illegals to vote, such as automatic registration by drivers license acquisition.
The midterms showed us the left is targeting its fraud to precincts in specific states, and they’re not interested in impeding the flow of illegals, who go on to acquire drivers licenses and hence, ballots. Ballots that are subject to harvesting and fraud.
In a land where one party vote farms illegals on a large scale, voting by citizens means, eventually, nothing, and by extension renders term limits irrelevant. The frauding party will always win.
Currently, the balanced back and forth that has historically kept things in check is holding, but barely. It is the balance I believe we should seek to preserve.
We need the constituency to rise up and demand cleansing of voting rolls and robust systems to prevent fraud.
-
Average time for a Senator in office is the same as that for a peer in the British House of Lords. They all have lifetime appointments. Yeah, term limits are a damn good idea. And especially for the SCOTUS. SCOTUS should move with the times, as the political pendulum shifts in the US it should too.
Personally, I think anyone should get about 10 years in government to do whatever it is they think they should do. Then they can move aside for the next guy. The only thing that worries me is how do you train all the new guys? I'm being special interests will be all too happy to do that, and that's the last thing we need.
No solution is perfect, but our system of government was set up for citizen legislators, not professional politicians. The Founders loathed those, just like everybody else.
-
Average time for a Senator in office is the same as that for a peer in the British House of Lords. They all have lifetime appointments. Yeah, term limits are a damn good idea. And especially for the SCOTUS. SCOTUS should move with the times, as the political pendulum shifts in the US it should too.
That's the best argument against my suggestion of term limits that I have ever seen. SCOTUS should definitely NOT sway with the political pendulum. They should interpret the Constitution as written. If the Constitution needs changing, that is what we have a legislative branch for.
My reason for wanting term limits has more to do with the human frailty regarding power. The more of it you have and the longer you have it, the more you become convinced of your own infallibility. I believe that is what leads to a lot of the "legislating from the bench".
-
I wonder why the framers didn’t put term limits for Congresscritters in place? I’m sure it must have been discussed.
Totally agree with Joe on SCOTUS.
-
I wonder why the framers didn’t put term limits for Congresscritters in place? I’m sure it must have been discussed.
Without the 17th amendment I would think the Senate would have change more often.
-
Without the 17th amendment I would think the Senate would have change more often.
Exactly. We would have senators who are there looking out for the interest of their state, which was the original intent.
-
And especially for the SCOTUS. SCOTUS should move with the times, as the political pendulum shifts in the US it should too.
No! The Supreme Court's job is to hear cases and judge them strictly according to the Constitution. It should NOT "move with the times." One year they interpret the constitution to say "a well regulated militia" means the Army. The next they interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean just that, and make their decisions move with the times according to a popularity poll? The Supreme Court is the Constitution's last stand and our best protection against mob rule.
-
No! The Supreme Court's job is to hear cases and judge them strictly according to the Constitution. It should NOT "move with the times." One year they interpret the constitution to say "a well regulated militia" means the Army. The next they interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean just that, and make their decisions move with the times according to a popularity poll? The Supreme Court is the Constitution's last stand and our best protection against mob rule.
^^^^^This. Want to destroy the reason America became successful? Just do what Steingar proposes. The Constitution should not "evolve" nor be interpreted politically nor with the popular views of the time. Don't like how the Constitution is written? Change it through the legal means that are available through the Amendment Process. We've done it many times before. Look at Prohibition. We amended the Constitution to reflect the so called popular views on alcohol, then amended to repeal.
If something is that popular you should be able to Amend the Constitution through the current legal means. Want to get rid of the Electoral College? Amend the Constitution don't do an END AROUND like many states are trying to do right now.
-
I wonder why the framers didn’t put term limits for Congresscritters in place? I’m sure it must have been discussed.
Totally agree with Joe on SCOTUS.
Same reason they didn't put term limits on the President?
-
There will be no term limits without a Convention of the States to institute it.