DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Extreme Court Rulings, Unhinged Red States, and Congressional GOPers

This is a case where the lawyers are looking out for their client.

As I said before, lot's is being said and some things aren't clear. Between legislative action and court decisions, clarity with happen soon enough. And by saying soon enough I am not trying to imply you being impatient, nor am I saying either should take their time. I think some of the questions with all of this were some of the things Roberts was trying to iron out before some idiot leaked the draft decision, screwing it all up.

He knew the Roe decision was questionable should have never been made, but he also knew some limits on exactly how far states could go in preventing abortions needed to be in place if they chose to prevent them.

I mean, no sensible person is going to demand a full-term pregnancy if doing so puts the mother in great physical peril. I am pretty sure they would change their tune if it was their wife, mother, or daughter in at position.

Maybe he should read the law.

Perhaps... like I said, I'm no expert so my post is definitely FWIW.

The doctors seem to think she will be in danger is action isn't taken. They can't take action until she's actually in danger, so they have to wait until she's in danger. They are not allowed to follow standard of care because of this.

This is what they voted for. Don’t let them try to dance around with “well that’s not what we meant”. This is what they voted for. Period.

My point, exactly.

Do you think state legislatures were simply confused by what their laws said? C'mon....

Activists, lawyers and doctors have been arguing for decades about the potential for abortion laws to jeopardize the health of the mother, and the need for laws to have specific and clear cutouts to allow doctors to make decisions about the mother's and fetus's health.... Hell, a state senator could read two pages of a Dawgtalkers forum and they would have known the issue.

Republican legislatures weren't confused -- they just ignored it.

I agree with your last part though -- any of these politicians will immediately send their family members to another state if the issue suddenly becomes relevant to them. (see Ted Cruz gets his medical care in Canada).

You make this too easy. It's because everything you listed puts people outside of yourself and your family at risk. Whether or not a woman has an abortion has no direct impact on you or anyone else outside of her family. What you push on every woman in society is your personal beliefs become her mandate. You believe that a being that can not even breathe on its own in order to sustain its own life is a baby and to hell with anyone who thinks differently than you.

You see, I'm not going to adopt their unwanted baby. I'm at the age there's no way I'm going to foster children. I'm fully aware of how broken the foster care system is and I don't see anyone really trying to fix it. As such, since I'm not going to "have the balls" as you put it to help care for those children by stepping up to the plate, I'm not going to try and push my personal beliefs by forcing women to have them.

You mean that women have a choice? Because I am not their master. I'm not for murdering children and never said I was. I have told you over and over, when I had to help make that choice I stood for life both times. Your only problem seems to be that I'm not willing to make that choice for every woman.

Just like we warned you they would. Why aren't you standing up against them? I know why. Because you got what you want and everything else isn't important.

BULL I wanted exemptions for the life/health of the mother, and for rape/incest. I didn't get what I wanted in Ohio but I won't stop trying to get it changed. Am I happy that abortion for convenience sake is no longer allowed in Ohio..... I sure am. Am I happy that their is no exception for rape/incest... I sure as hell am not.

As of now it's the politicians who have zero medical experience making those decisions. And that's the fear of doctors. That's why women are suffering. Because physicians are afraid that even if they make sound medical decisions they will be persecuted and those politicians will come after them. You need look no further than the doctor in Indiana who performed the abortion on the 11 year old rape victim from Ohio. The procedure was legal in Indiana and the state AG is coming after her.

People who have no qualifications to make health care decisions are using intimidation in every way they possibly can to prevent women from getting the proper care from medical professionals. But yeah, let's try to convince others that somehow makes any sense.............

You allowed the inmates to run the asylum. You were warned repeatedly about this. You didn't listen.

They got EXACTLY WHAT THEY VOTED FOR. Don’t let them try to spin it any other way.
Women will die because of their vote. PERIOD. They need to own it.

Pit, you’re arguing with someone that couldn’t pass Biology 101 again if they tried. You’re wasting your breath.

The inmates have been running the asylum for years. Where in the hell have you been lol

Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices

A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”

The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.

If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.

Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.

Under senior status, justices will still hold their office on the Supreme Court, which includes official duties and pay. If the number of justices dips below nine at some point — because of a vacancy, disability or disqualification — the justice who most recently attained senior status would serve as the ninth associate justice.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced the bill along with Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) as co-sponsors.

In a statement Johnson said the bench “is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis.”

“Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it,” he said, referring to justices nominated by former Presidents Trump and George W. Bush.

“Term limits are a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court,” he added.

Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said implementing term limits for justices is “essential” amid “all the harmful and out-of-touch rulings from the Supreme Court this last year.”

“Otherwise, we will be left with backwards-looking majority for a generation or more,” he added in a statement.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced the same measure in the Senate.

Introduction of the bill comes more than a month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that deemed the right to abortion constitutional.

The decision caused outrage among Democrats across the country and mobilized House lawmakers to pass a pair of bills safeguarding access to abortion.

Earlier this month, following the seismic Supreme Court ruling, a coalition of House Democrats — including Johnson — touted a bill to expand the bench, adding four seats to bring the total number of justices to 13.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...-term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices/

"A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”

I suggest they start with term limits for themselves first if they really want to restore legitimacy.

Third times a charm says Rep. Khanna!

This bill will die in committee just like it did in September of 2020 and August of 2021. Just some noise for the news cycle.

https://khanna.house.gov/sites/khanna.house.gov/files/KHANNA_070_xml.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5140/text

That's not a bad idea. Perhaps next they can institute term limits for themselves.

A lot of people suggest silly limits like 6 or 12 years, I worry about that.

I would be fine with 24. As we have seen there are people that have hung around for 50 years, and that is too long.

If limits were enacted, it shouldn't be term limits in so far as years served. I could possibly see limits on age, but it would have to be across the board on government.

Congress....maybe 65 unless in leadership, up to 70.

Senate, maybe 70 unless in leadership, up to 75.

Supreme Court, maybe 75 Chief, maybe 80.
President....maybe 75 top.

Obviously, people could finish a term.

This is just a quick stab at my thoughts on the matter, I don't intend to debate people on "what about this" questions. No doubt there would have to be details to work out.

I just find it funny that the members of the most useless house of government, with the most unqualified members is the one calling for term limits. Well, I suppose it does make sense.

''peen , I would get behind an age restriction 100%
We already have lower limits. At the time there probably weren't enough people living into their 80's to make them think about the upper limit. But clearly that time has come

term limits.

i have big beef with age restrictions.

I'd recommend that each president have the ability to appoint two new supreme court justices. This should take place in YR1 and YR3 of their presidency. The justice needs to past the additional muster of 50 votes, but if it fails, the president can put up another candidate for the same position.

If there is a vacancy (due to death or resignation) then that justice is replaced -- if the death happens before, the timeline for the replacement can be moved up.

If there is no current vacancy, then the justice who has been on the bench for the longest period of time is removed.

If there is a 3rd or higher justice that is replaced during a single presidents term (due to death/resignation) -- then the president can appoint another justice, but it demands a supermajority in the senate (66 votes) to endorse, rather than 50.

This means that justices serve at least 18 years, potentially longer (if another judge dies and bumps the replacement line). If a president gets to appoint 3rd/4th judges, then they are forced to be relatively moderate. While the appointment of a 3rd justice could easily be blocked by one of the parties (e.g., Republicans blocking Garland in 2015), this would not really benefit the party anymore - because even if they won the presidency they would only have the ability to nominate 2 justices in the next term.

I think all elected positions should be limited to 8 or 10-year terms. If they want to remain in politics or public service, they can run for a different position. You could still have lifelong politicians, they might have to actually work to get the new job. 24 years might as well be life terms, IMO.

I just find it funny that people rail against career politicians and then turn around and rail against people who aren't career politicians. But when it's something they disagree with I suppose it does make sense.

But as it pertains to the topic at hand I think the Democrats have become so desperate to control the SCOTUS they don't realize their own tactics will only serve to come back and bite them in the ass when Republicans are in full control.

Wow! We actually agree and have something in common. Who would have thunk it!

Broken clocks and blind squirrels... lol. But a little common ground is better than none at all.

24 years is a reasonable limit as far as I am concerned to maintain some consistency in the institutional practices.

Two and a half decades is longer than most serve now. Grassley is running for his 8th term of 6 years iirc, that's forty years. So he'd be out in your 24-year limit. But Schumer, elected in 1998 and taking his seat in 1999 would still have a year or two... think about that.

three six-year terms are more than enough, IMHO, if you are interested in continuity.

I am fine with it. Partisanship aside there is a need to have continuity.

I understand your thinking here. But thus far continuity has led us to nothing but stagnation.

I would like to see more ads like this calling out the crazy.





Mothers against Greg Abbott giving out a SMACK DOWN.

Correction: Partisan political parties and gerrymandering has created stagnation

Cry me a river Alito you scumbag. You just caused a whole lot more hate for your religious beliefs.

I know he's a SC Justice and I'm just Joe Blow, but wow that is such a dumb take.

There’s no hostility for religion. It’s not Jesus I struggle with, it’s his misguided followers.
Lord save me from your followers. Amen.

BS, you got what you wanted. You voted on the basis of one issue. Ban abortions, which included no exceptions for rape/incest. You supported it then but now you don’t totally agree with what went down. How convenient. You were happy when trump stacked the extreme court to get r vs w overturned. You now come back here and say you’re against one issue again? You’re losing credibility on this one issue thing bro.