Yes! I would love to accept bribes! I also want employer stock ownership restrictions banned!How about some laws about accepting bribes? That would be great.
Or maybe I misunderstood you
Yes! I would love to accept bribes! I also want employer stock ownership restrictions banned!How about some laws about accepting bribes? That would be great.
One of your Democrat hero’s was just found guilty of the exactly that. Huh go figureHow about some laws about accepting bribes? That would be great.
Yep. Nothing new and almost all of it would require a constitutional amendment.Nothing new here. Simple question, is SCOTUS term limits and ethics code in the constitution? No! Only way is a constitutional amendment. That is why even congress cannot pass term limits on themselves, it is not in the constitution. In this political environment NO constitutional amendments are passing.
You mean like Senator Menendez?How about some laws about accepting bribes? That would be great.
Are you talking about Joe or Jill?It's a campaign ploy to try to get leftists who are so uninspired by Biden to come to the polls...but Biden would never introduce the amendment or any significant legislation.
either orAre you talking about Joe or Jill?
Yep. Just like that.You mean like Senator Menendez?
Not my hero.One of your Democrat hero’s was just found guilty of the exactly that. Huh go figure
How about some laws about accepting bribes? That would be great.
Rush Limbaugh talked about the "Dumbing down of America" back in the early 1990's I believe.The issue is, to do such a thing you need a deeper understanding of the law than most lawyers and lawmakers. Because if you just ham-fistedly try to do such a thing, you get super PACs, and the definition of bribery just gets shifted.
This is why all the arguments about "Just tax the rich!" are so braindead to anyone who understands the system. If it were so simple of a problem to solve, it absolutely would have been solved.
But we lack competency in legal and political understanding as a nation, so we're going to continue down the road to idiocracy until people make an actual attempt to do better.
What civil war?Terms are specified for the President and Legislators, not for the Supreme Court.
Number of SCOTUS Justices is by law; hasn't changed since just after the Civil War IIRC.
Axl RoseWhat civil war?
Good point, wars aren't civil.What civil war?
Good point, wars aren't civil.
"We don't need no civil war..."Good point, wars aren't civil.
Unfortunately, too many members of congress also do not care about the constitutionaliy of the laws they pass. They will pass laws knowing full well that once challenged some of the federal courts will shoot them down while others uphold them. It will be years before SCOTUS hears them, and by that time a lot of damage has already been done.Nothing new here. Simple question, is SCOTUS term limits and ethics code in the constitution? No! Only way is a constitutional amendment. That is why even congress cannot pass term limits on themselves, it is not in the constitution. In this political environment NO constitutional amendments are passing.