superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,521
The people who should post on this thread are: 1) lawyers or people trained in the law; 2) people who are knowledgeable about law; 3) people who are interested in learning more about legal issues of today. It is also open for discussion of what the law should be, and plenty of people can contribute to those discussions without being knowledgeable about law. I would just like everyone to be respectful of the intended level of discourse here.
If you do not fall into one of those categories, please do not post here. Let other people have some nice things. If you can't do that, then I think you should find another board. Several posters here specifically asked me to post over here (from ZZLP) because they enjoy the legal discussions and find them interesting. It is hard to have those discussions if the threads get polluted with other stuff. So, using the "don't be a dick" principle, please don't be a dick.
Anyway, the thread is open for business. I'll start by
1. Observing that Neil Gorsuch becomes the second justice to threaten Congress and Dems in particular if they attempt to exercise oversight;
2. Did everyone forget about checks and balances? We read a LOT about separation of powers. Well, the whole point of separation of powers was to provide checks and balances. If the judicial branch won't respect checks and balances, then it will have to be forced to do so, I guess. But separation of powers is both meaningless and incredibly stupid if there are no enforceable checks.
3. A constitutional amendment is not required to establish term limits. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a Supreme Court justice to continue to have active status during "good behavior." The point of lifetime tenure was to prevent Justices from having to worry about future employment prospects when their term was done. They weren't to be intimidated by economic threats. At no point was it ever intended that judges could do what they wanted and nobody could stop them.
This "amendment is required" thing is being too readily accepted by intelligent non-MAGA legal journalists.
4. The Supreme Court does not get to weigh in on the constitutionality of term limits for Justices. The Court as a whole is obviously inherently conflicted, and it's a political question, not a legal one. If the Court tries, it should be ignored. This is different than if, say, Congress passed a law defrocking Thomas without impeachment. That case could be heard by the Court because, presumably, the other 8 Justices would not be conflicted. In reality, they would be -- but this is a silly hypo considering that a) Congressional action targeted at a specific justice would be unconstitutional and b) that law would never happen.
Bon appetit
If you do not fall into one of those categories, please do not post here. Let other people have some nice things. If you can't do that, then I think you should find another board. Several posters here specifically asked me to post over here (from ZZLP) because they enjoy the legal discussions and find them interesting. It is hard to have those discussions if the threads get polluted with other stuff. So, using the "don't be a dick" principle, please don't be a dick.
Anyway, the thread is open for business. I'll start by
1. Observing that Neil Gorsuch becomes the second justice to threaten Congress and Dems in particular if they attempt to exercise oversight;
2. Did everyone forget about checks and balances? We read a LOT about separation of powers. Well, the whole point of separation of powers was to provide checks and balances. If the judicial branch won't respect checks and balances, then it will have to be forced to do so, I guess. But separation of powers is both meaningless and incredibly stupid if there are no enforceable checks.
3. A constitutional amendment is not required to establish term limits. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a Supreme Court justice to continue to have active status during "good behavior." The point of lifetime tenure was to prevent Justices from having to worry about future employment prospects when their term was done. They weren't to be intimidated by economic threats. At no point was it ever intended that judges could do what they wanted and nobody could stop them.
This "amendment is required" thing is being too readily accepted by intelligent non-MAGA legal journalists.
4. The Supreme Court does not get to weigh in on the constitutionality of term limits for Justices. The Court as a whole is obviously inherently conflicted, and it's a political question, not a legal one. If the Court tries, it should be ignored. This is different than if, say, Congress passed a law defrocking Thomas without impeachment. That case could be heard by the Court because, presumably, the other 8 Justices would not be conflicted. In reality, they would be -- but this is a silly hypo considering that a) Congressional action targeted at a specific justice would be unconstitutional and b) that law would never happen.
Bon appetit
Last edited:
