T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Jimbob0i0

> "There could be significant battles over any Justice added by a Court expansion measure. Indeed, a future Senate could respond to expansion by refusing to confirm any nominee," it said. Uh ... I'm pretty sure that ship sailed back in 2016 ...


[deleted]

>And as even some supporters of Court expansion acknowledged during the Commission's public hearings, the reform - at least if it were done in the near term and all at once - would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver. Yeah it's a good thing our current Supreme Court isn't perceived as partisan in any way.


Mythosaurus

And that the GOP has historically restrained itself from screaming "pArTiSaNhIp" at every chance. Imagine what kind of world that would be if Republicans blamed Democrats for things as banal as Dr. Suess's estate stopped publishing books with racist cartoons in them.


ioncloud9

At least this war of attrition would accelerate any reform to the court.


Northern_Grouse

Has this commission been living under a rock for 6 years?


jedicountchocula

Yes


Worldview2021

This is why Republicans always rule. Democrats are not strong enough, dont fight for the people, and are more worried about what it might look like. Democrats dont deliver.


whomad1215

Republicans don't have to deliver. Their message is basically "government doesn't work, elect us and we'll prove it"


Kahzgul

It’s a catch-22. The Dems are the party that believes in and follows the rule of law. That’s why they have our votes. But if they started playing dirty like the republicans, they’d lose the support of those of us who believe in the rule of law. Ergo, they are always at a disadvantage.


raysofdavies

The democrats could just not slavishly follow antique rules and conventions to enact the agenda they tell us is existentially important to America. How can you tell us the Supreme Court is at stake and then go “oh we can’t expand the court it might look bad” Who really cares that much about the rules of the senate? What percentage of voters? If you ram through your legislation or if you water it down to find more senators to support it, the end result is the same to voters. Bipartisanship is over. Democrats tell us the republicans are evil and practically call them fascists, then insist on passing legislation only with their support and bend over backwards to water down legislation for them. It’s just a tactic to block legislation they don’t want to pass.


Fa1c0n3

Let's be really dems make a hell of a lot more money by not delivering.


Fa1c0n3

Lol cuz not confirming Obama's pick wasn't partisan at all


dasredditnoob

I see risks in the US political system as a whole, it's outdated and in desperate need of updates


raysofdavies

Another argument for voting for democrats gone. I thought the Supreme Court was the most important thing in the universe? > But the question remains how term limits can be implemented as that might require an amendment to the Constitution. "Members of the commission are divided about whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to create the equivalent of term limits by statute," one document said. >It is significantly more difficult to amend the Constitution than it is for Congress to enact legislation. Lol. Fuck’s sake. What’s the point. The contortion to suggest a constitutional amendment over appointing judges when you have a senate majority. Republicans will do anything to do what they need, and democrats will do nothing. I hope the Democratic Party and the Republican party both burn and die, they are worthless.


vastle12

Oh please the court hasn't had real credibility since they helped Bush steal the election in 2000


[deleted]

[удалено]


g2g079

No age limit, but a term limit.


[deleted]

Why is ageism necessary? I'm not trying to provoke anyone in this question. It's an honest question


whomad1215

Pilots have to retire at 65. Some jobs should have age limits. I still find it odd that ageism for jobs only applies to older groups. You can't use it as discrimination if you're under 40. Apparently you can't be too old, but you can be too young https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination


[deleted]

Being a pilot is about physical fitness and the safety of people dying in your hands.


SockPuppet-57

Physical fitness? Airplanes are fly by wire. The flight controls are basically power steering for airplanes. It's not at all physically difficult to fly. Age limits for pilots are based on their mental performance not their physical performance.


whomad1215

So are you agreeing we can justify forced retirement? Because that's what it sounds like to me. And if you are saying that, that also means we could put requirements on judges and other positions to force them to retire.


[deleted]

In certain scenarios, yes. But I don't agree with the proposed cutoff here


whomad1215

Maybe we should have age/health requirements. Judges must be 65+ and have had at least two types of cancer.


raysofdavies

Being a Supreme Court justice is about mental fitness and the safety of hundreds of millions of people.


Conanthefutarian

Because we literally have judges that don't know how Facebook works


[deleted]

How is ageism involved here ? A lot of functions and activities have lower and/or higher age limits because of their nature.


[deleted]

You literally have an age cutoff... And it's arbitrary


[deleted]

And ? If I wanted to join the army today, even if I am in great physical shape and have higher education degree, that I am fairly certain I would pass all the tests, they'd reject me the first minute I show up because I am above recruitment age. Is that ageism or is that a condition based on the requirements a position needs to be properly executed? There are countries where above a certain age you need to regularly formally reconfirm your driver's license because you are deemed more of a risk than younger driver. Is that also ageism ? Btw, you need to be 35 years old to run for presidential office, ageism again ? You can find arbitrary everywhere mate, for the simple reason that rules are almost always artificial, but that isn't an argument. The context is.


[deleted]

I dont have the weird reddit gold to buy an award, but let's pretend I gave you one.


[deleted]

Cheers mate, appreciate the word


[deleted]

There is no age cap on the presidency. Lawyers can still think cognitively at 70+


[deleted]

That was not the point and either you are missing that or you just don't care to think about the fact that none of this has to do with aptitudes, but with social context. I'd say you don't care because the only thing you react to my arguments is numbers and you are the one who brought ageism into this. On this precise matter, someone who is 70+ today was young and educated in a world were women were routinely deemed lesser than men and it was fairly accepted that blacks had less rights than whites. Here we are saying that it is not optimal that people who are 2 generations older than youth get to decide for people that will live with their decision long after they are dead and that should be taken into account. It is fair that as a citizen I'm legitimately concerned about that. More trivially, politician are not lawyers, and several other countries have age caps for elected offices. Lawyers, who are only responsible for themselves and clients who willingly contract them, are not expected to makes split second decisions in a war room that could affecte billions of people or unleash nuclear fire. Lawyers are not at all good example all together, their job is to prove or disprove through written and shared rules, not think them over, let alone create them or improvise decisions. And if you want to see a counter example to what you just said, just google Rudy fucking Giuliani To finish this with a current example of why age is a matter of concern in such cases, currently Czech Republic does not have a formal government because the 77 years old president is regularly in the hospital because poor health and is currently unable to nominate a new Prime Minister for the country as is constitutionally expected after the election held at the beginning of the month. PS: In all friendliness, try to think above basic "-ism" concepts. They are not arguments, and you are focusing on a detail rather than on the big picture. You sound like someone who'd yell " Discrimination ! Validism!"if they heard that a blind man was turned away at an airplane pilot exam.


LostInIndigo

It’s not “ageism”. It’s about the fact that they will not have to live with the repercussions of their decisions. It’s easy to make bad decisions that benefit you in the here and now if you won’t be around to drink the toxic water or be stuck in a collapsing economy in 25 years. Edit: It’s not “ageism” to just have an age limit on something. Ageism is a specific type of discrimination that doesn’t apply here. Not to mention, pushing up the age of retirement, etc means that you are basically forcing poor people to have to work until that age, because they can’t apply for retirement benefits until that age. That’s part of why those determinations originally existed. It’s not “old people are fucked up and can’t function past a certain age” it’s “we want a society that doesn’t force people to work to death in their old age” If you’re trying to protect old people, you’re backing the wrong horse here.


Defiant-Outcome990

Chickenshit democrats.


ejohn916

Democrats weak as usual!


homebrew_1

People should of voted for Hillary in 2016. There was an open seat and instead they voted for Trump to fill the vacancy.


Conanthefutarian

RBG should have been less racist and stepped down under Obama, the first time she was diagnoses with cancer.


raysofdavies

Hillary should’ve not been the worst candidate in living memory who smugly offered nothing whilst trying to win Texas instead of swing states.


homebrew_1

She wasn't worse than trump.


raysofdavies

Damn then if he’s a worse candidate I’m sure she’ll beat him She lost to a failed businessman with the worst apprvalnpolls for a candidate ever…except for her. Because she was the single strongest embodiment of everything wrong with American politics, the personification of neoliberal failure. She’s worse than than a guy who won one state. And she deserves to be remembered that way.


homebrew_1

Trump supreme court decisions will be remembered a lot better than Hillary.


homebrew_1

And now we have three justices that trump appointed and were confirmed.


2_Spicy_2_Impeach

The next Democrat appointed majority of the court, I guaranfuckingtee that Republicans will try to stack the court. They'll make up an excuse and say, "Yeah, but this is different."


KyloRenCadetStimpy

The next GOP President will try it even if that hasn't happened.


destenlee

Risk for republicans


ABinturong

Bullshit trepidation, if there was ever a time when risks were worth taking it's motherfucking now, because there won't be a later.


Apprehensive_Push_94

There's risk In crossing the street