Should there be term limits in the rest of the federal government and non supreme court?

[raven6933]

Yes or no.

Yes they should

No they shouldn't

I don't care

[nightdrot]

The problem term limits in general, let alone for the Supreme Court, is that it greatly overstates the influence of the parties in the American constitutional system as well as distorting their nature. In fact, the influence of the parties varies quite a bit depending on the degree to which there exists within a party on any given issue. With, overall, party discipline in the American system tending to be rather weak compared to other Western countries. This because of the nature of the parties.

American political parties are not ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe. Rather they are lose knit coalitions of regional, religious, ethnic, racial, income and other groups that have come together in part by common interests and in part by historical accident.

In the case of the GOP, it is a coalition made up of classical liberals - which Americans call conservatives - libertarians, small and medium sized business, religious and social traditionalists, lower middle and upper middle income earners, farmers, rural and exurban populations, and historically older voters. It tends to dominate the South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain West and the state of Alaska - though this is starting to change somewhat.

On the Democratic side you get, ethnic and religious minorities, middle and high income wage earners, big business and entertainment industries, urban and inner suburban votes, radical liberals - which Americans call liberals. (Note, the term "radical" here does not mean as Americans use it, i. e. "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used the term, meaning "to the root of.") The regions where it is dominant are northeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast and the state of Hawaii. (Though again, this is starting to change and is one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton was defeated in 2016.)

This is how you get a Republican Party that runs from Ted Cruz at one end to Susan Collins at the other, with the libertarian Rand Paul thrown into the mix. This is how you get a Democratic Party that runs from Joe Manchin at one end to Elizabeth Warren at the other. Quite simply, party identification is not about ideological identity.

This being even more complicated by the fact that both parties are experiencing a populist phase as happened in the late 19th century and again in the 1960s and 70s. Populism not being a schematic philosophy, but rather a cultural attitude characterized by distrust of complexity, a disdain for elites, and a belief that the common man is the font of all virtue but that he is oppressed by the elites and the "special interests." This manifesting itself in a mishmash of policies that are more often related by sentiment than any coherent overarching theoretical structure.

Thus President Trump in the GOP. He is NOT a conservative. Thus the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic party. She is not a liberal nor a socialist. Rather both appeal to feelings of envy and resentment in the electorate and toss out random policies to appease those sentiments.

To this then, American parties lack centralized disciplinary mechanisms like those in the British system. There is no de-selection of candidates. Rather a party's candidates are chosen mostly in primary elections or state conventions - regardless of what the party leaderships may think best.

Similarly, there is no "withdrawing of the whip," wherein a member of the party is kicked out for disobeying the party leadership. Thus, the Congressional leaderships cannot be assured of having unified party support on key votes. (For example, right now, Senate Majority Leader McConnell - normally a highly effective, by American standards, parliamentary operator - is unable to unite the Senate GOP on the very important COVID relief bill and thus there is gridlock.)

So it almost comes down to issue by issue. On abortion, where the country as a whole is highly polarized, each party tends to march in lockstep with its' side. (Even then, there are splits. Senator Collins (R) is pro-choice. Former Senate Majority Leader Reid (D) was pro-life. I cite the latter because he actually led a pro-choice party!!)

Take it issue by issue and the influence of the parties will vary. Other relevant factors being the degree - or lack of same - of a social consensus on any given issue. The part of the country where the politician is from. (From the south, both parties tend to be more conservative - as Americans understand the term. From the northeast, more liberal - as Americans understand the term.)

So while the parties are not without their influence on government policies, it will, by global standards, tend to vary more issue by issue. That being said, the British statesman and political philosopher said, “Party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.” In this they are, on the whole, advantageous to democracy, bringing like minded citizens together for the purpose of persuading their fellow citizens to follow a certain policy agenda.

Suffice to say that term limits would not significantly impact much of this. Indeed, they might worsen what you lament in that the former Members of Congress would then go on to lobby their former colleagues. This thereby further diminishing the influence of the "average voter."

The real truth being that the average voter pretty much gets what he wants over time. He just then laments the consequences of what he wanted. There the problem really lies - i. e. the American public gets the kind of government it deserves.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Sorry for the type-o's. I have been having some computer problems. In any case, there is a sentence missing that spoke of historical examples - hence my reference to "Majority Leader McConnell."

Obviously now he is the Minority Leader. Not sure where that sentence - as well as some words at various points my answer went.

Again, apologies. I hope you get the idea I was trying to convey.

[raven6933]

I'm not about to touch on all that but there are so many mistakes as far as who represents what. Just to clear up a few. Manchin is a repuglikkkon in Democratic clothing. AOC is very much a progressive leaning towards socialism as is Elizabeth Warren, Rashida Talib, Bernie Sanders, the others in the squad, Corrie Booker and Bush, Katie Porter as well as a host of others. Mcturtle has been in long enough that he knows how to get what he wants. He may be evil but he's a master manipulator. The reason why Hilary lost was because the Bernie Sanders supporters got pissy and just stayed home. Apparently they learned from that fiasco. The orange swamp toddler will use anybody and everything to get what it wants. Which is corruption with no accountability. It is nothing more than a Russian asset. All you need to do is look at two of it's wives one whom is an ex. The business dealings in Russia, the taking the word of puuty over it's own intelligence leaders. I believe that the extortion of Valadimire Zylenski was two folds. One was to get political dirt on President Biden and the other was to slow down the arms money to Ukraine for the eminent invasion of Ukraine. There is also way too much friendliest towards puuty. So much so that it was trying to force him into the G7. That in itself should have been a red flag. Now on to term limits. The President and VP are the only ones with term limits. The others should abide by those as well. There are entirely too many money grubbing politicians who vote whatever way their corporate masters tell them to. By limiting term limits this makes it more difficult to pull off. Especially since there are two repuglikkkon in Democrat clothing Manchin and Senama blocking the term limits with the filabuster.

[raven6933]

The starting of the downfall of the US started under Reagan whom I refer to as monkey man. As he was most remembered staring in a movie with a monkey. One would think that one celebrity was a bad idea but then we got another one. Which was even worse. They are actively trying to remove the separation of church and state. If they want a church state then they have two options. #1 go back to their own country #2 move to Russia where as it's already their paradise. No brown menace and only one maybe two religions and the women from what I am told, love to be dominated. None of that is any of my concern as long as they either leave the rest of us alone or leave altogether. We have been traumatized every since the invasion.

[nightdrot]

Well, given your fairly obvious ideological dispositions, it is pretty clear that you are not interested in simply analysis. Suffice to say, your viewpoint begs the question of how the more extensive the government the less likely it would be open to outside interests.

The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. In any case, about the most term limits will do - and oh, by the way, I worked for a Republican Member of Congress who was a staunch supporter of term limits - is create a class of former legislators who will have an inside track to their former colleagues.

Yeah, no chance of influence peddling there.

[monorprise]

Technically The house and senate are suppose to have the qualifications of their respective branches of their state legislators.

It was their hand picked politicians in black robes in the early 90s that rubber stamped democrat demands to remain in office regardless of no longer being qualified to run in their state.

[Gummy_Cluster]

If it were put to a referendum vote, I bet 90% of the citizens would want term limits. I want the one and done system. The leader of the free world doesn't know who Brandon is.

[raven6933]

You would be correct. There is slight movement but I don't think anything will happen before 2025. Who might you be referring to as not knowing who Brandon is?

[Gummy_Cluster]

Biden.

[OddBeMe]

Thought it said “I don’t know”. Perhaps some jobs should have term limits.

I read a great book called the Fifth Risk about the admin behind the govt. And there are DEVOTED govt employees who work for shit because they believe in their position. Like state department, Medicare, etc. Not elected or appointed. officials. Day to day office drones who’ve been there their entire working career.

[RolandCuthbert]

With as much power as incumbent politicians wield, do you ever think we will see a bill passed for term limits? Do you even think we will see a bill on transparency for donations?

[raven6933]

Uh, no. Even though it popped up during the 2020-2022 term it will be ignored until 2025.

[Guy13]

The question is to loose. There’s no background and an explanation is needed please.

[raven6933]

Really? Have not seen what has taken place over the past decade or three? The longer they're left in office, raises the possibility of being corrupted. Ninety percent of one side and forty percent of the other side is owned by lobbyist. This is an extreme problem. The non supreme court is not supposed to be biased and the separation of church and state specifically prohibits this. But since they face no consequences for their malfeasance they continue to do so. Several are being bribed by churches and one's wife is a domestic terrorists. Did that clear up the confusion?

[exitseven]

yes, House gets 4 terms Senate gets two.