Democrats love changing the rules, or at least attempting to, when they don’t get their way. They’re like children throwing tantrums. Of course, the nation knows that liberal members of Congress still can’t believe Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016.
That’s what impeachment was all about. Dems were looking to get back at Trump in whatever way possible, no matter the amount of damage to their brand or the nation, as a whole.
Eric Holder served as attorney general for the first six years of Barack Obama’s presidency, leaving a litany of scandals in his wake. He is now calling for term limits for Supreme Court justices.
From Student Life:
Through stories and a healthy portion of jokes, Holder gave audience members insight into the operations of the Justice Department under Obama, the criticism that current Attorney General William Barr is facing and the threat of gerrymandering during the redistricting process in 2021.Trending:
He also offered, for what appears to be the first time, his endorsement of a proposal to term-limit Supreme Court justices. He also advocated for allowing each president to appoint two justices each per term.
18 years is enough for an unelected official – Supreme Court justice – wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position – including Trump. Reform is necessary https://t.co/SKapGfgliB
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) February 19, 2020
Are you calling for Ginsberg to resign Eric?
— Hans Giesholt (@DWDrummer13) February 20, 2020
Of course, our founders predicted this. The reason for the "lifetime appointments" is that it allows for there to be one branch of government that remains the constant while the other two branches change.
— BevfromNYC (@BevfromNYC) February 20, 2020
Funny, you didn't push this plan when it looked like Dems would hold the White House for a long time.
I wonder why….. 🤔https://t.co/3y5bDmBuGi
— Bonk (@BonkPolitics) February 20, 2020
Here we go again:. "We need to change the rules because we didn't win", Part 243.
— OregonMuse (@OregonMuse) February 20, 2020
Holder recommending a drastic change to SCOTUS tenures:
You can bet your life that if we had a Democratic President in office/about to win re-election, that the disingenuous #Holder wouldn’t be recommending any such change.
— John Betts (@JohnFromCranber) February 20, 2020
The Constitution ignored yet again, sighs. I am democrat yet am sadden by this logic.
— Tony Franklin (@tgf123) February 19, 2020
Once a cheat, always a cheat. Change the rules to go your way. Glad you’re out and over.
— Elle (@GlentiesElle) February 20, 2020
The system is designed to span generations, and dampen the temporal emotional call to action which is the calling card of radicals.
Let's leave it alone.
— Malcolm Scott (@Malcolm_Scott1) February 20, 2020
Sorry–Congress cannot limit SCOTUS terms under the Constitution. See Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50, 57-62 (1982) (bankruptcy judges cannot exercise Article III powers w/o lifetime tenure & no change in salary).
— Kevin C. McGee (@bankrlawimp) February 20, 2020
— Tom (@BoreGuru) February 19, 2020
That’s a no from me. In order to get a seat on the Supreme Court, a person has had to play a single elimination tournament through adulthood without losing. Once they get in that seat, the nation benefits from long tenures from accomplished individuals mastering their final job.
— Wesley Mullins (@wesleyamullins) February 20, 2020