If this does not stop

[gounion]

GoU, you're talking Joe here. His word games are his calling card.

Yeah, he just isn't any good at it.

[marindem01]

Yeah, he just isn't any good at it.

No, but joe thinks he is pulling something off. Even when he is busted, he continues the games.

[Drak]

I read a lot of things. I just don’t post. This board has 27 members…Not a lot of interest by much of anyone outside of a few older members in posting here anymore. Wonder why that is?

Not worth posting here much anymore.

Fascinating. I guess this isn’t true.

[Libertas]

Fascinating. I guess this isn’t true.

What is a con to do.

They support the party that is changing the laws in their states so that they can ignore the slate of electors and send the electors they want to send next time trump or gop loses.

These are fascists. Enemies of decent people, for REAL they are. I just hope people get that now, finally!

[Number6]

My view is if that was what they meant, that’s what they would have said.

They did in the language of their day and not in the language of today.

[gounion]

They did in the language of their day and not in the language of today.

I'm quite sure "lifetime" was a word common in the day.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that the Constitution gives them a lifetime job.

[Bludogdem]

I'm quite sure "lifetime" was a word common in the day.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that the Constitution gives them a lifetime job.

From Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution.

“ § 1614. If passing from general reasoning, an appeal is made to the lessons of experience, there is every thing to convince us, that the judicial department is safe to a republic, with the tenure of office during good behaviour; and that justice will ordinarily be best administered, where there is most independence. Of the state constitutions, five only out of twenty-four have provided for any other tenure of office, than during good behaviour; and those adopted by the new states admitted into the Union, since the formation of the national government, have, with two or three exceptions only, embraced the same permanent tenure of office. No one can hesitate to declare, that in the states, where the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, justice is administered with wisdom, moderation, and firmness; and that the public confidence has reposed upon the judicial department, in the most critical times, with unabated respect. If the same can be said in regard to other states, where the judges enjoy a less permanent tenure of office, it will not answer the reasoning, unless it can also be shown, that the judges have never been remove”

“ § 1613. The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behaviour”

“ § 1616. In the convention a proposition was offered to make the judges removeable by the president, upon the application of the senate and house of representatives; but it received the support of a single state only.”

“ § 1619. A proposition of a more imposing nature was to authorize a removal of judges for inability to discharge the duties of their offices. But all considerate persons will readily perceive, that such a provision would either not be practised upon, or would be more liable to abuse, than calculated to answer any good purpose. The mensuration of the faculties of the mind has no place in the catalogue of any known art or science. An attempt to fix the boundary between the region of ability and inability would much oftener give rise to personal, or party attachments and hostilities, than advance the interests of justice, or the public good. And instances of absolute imbecility would be too rare to justify the introduction of so dangerous a provision.

§ 1620. In order to avoid investigations of this sort, which must for ever be vague and unsatisfactory, some persons have been disposed to think, that a limitation of age should be assumed as a criterion of inability; so that there should be a constitutional removal from office, when the judge should attain a certain age. Some of the state constitutions have adopted such a limitation. Thus, in New-York, sixty years of age is a disqualification for the office of judge; and in some other states the period is prolonged to seventy. The value of these provisions has never, as yet, been satisfactorily established by the experience of any state. That they have worked mischievously in some cases is matter of public notoriety. . . .”

“ § 1629. It is almost unnecessary to add, that, although the constitution has, with so sedulous a care, endeavoured to guard the judicial department from the overwhelming influence or power of the other co-ordinate departments of the government, it has not conferred upon them any inviolability, or irresponsibility for an abuse of their authority. On the contrary for any corrupt violation or omission of the high trusts confided to the judges, they are liable to be impeached, (as we have already seen,) and upon conviction removed from office. Thus, on the one hand, a pure and independent administration of public justice is amply provided for; and, on the other hand, an urgent responsibility secured for fidelity to the people.”

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founder ... _1s38.html

The intent of the framers is life tenure for judges.

And as Number6 stated, the framers term of art to declare this is “ The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”.

[gounion]

You keep telling me their intent. Well, if that was their intent, the word "lifetime" was in general use at that time.

Again, you don't care what it ACTUALLY says. That's how everyone also told me what the Bible meant.

[Bludogdem]

You keep telling me their intent. Well, if that was their intent, the word "lifetime" was in general use at that time.

Again, you don't care what it ACTUALLY says. That's how everyone also told me what the Bible meant.

Read what Justice Story is saying. Read the whole thing. It’s obvious that “Good Behavior” means life tenure. Especially in the absence any stated term limits. The paragraph on the difference with some of the the state constitution on tenure should be enough for you to deduce the meaning. But as Number6 pointed out, the writings of the founders are quite different than what is written today. Good Behavior to the founders means life tenure.

[gounion]

Read what Justice Story is saying. Read the whole thing. It’s obvious that “Good Behavior” means life tenure. Especially in the absence any stated term limits. The paragraph on the difference with some of the the state constitution on tenure should be enough for you to deduce the meaning. But as Number6 pointed out, the writings of the founders are quite different than what is written today. Good Behavior to the founders means life tenure.

It's obvious that's what HE thinks it says.

Show me a dictionary that says the definition of "Good behavior" is "lifetime job security".

Tell me, do you think the Second Amendment is only about having weapons for a national guard-type militia since they didn't have a standing army?

[ZoWie]

The second amendment was so that the country would be able to raise an army were one to be needed, absent the kind of modern militaries which did not come into wide use until around the Napoleonic Wars. Soldiering was a lot different in those days.

It is explicitly spelled out in the amendment that its intent is to prevent a "free people" from being disarmed, the way King George tried to do. The "right to keep and bear arms" meant the right to organize well-ordered paramilitary militias on the local level, responding to threats in the absence of a standing army that could respond, or a means of getting Federal troops to where they were needed in a timely manner, given that horses were about the fastest transportation they had.

In the "wild west," it was common for towns to make visitors check their hardware at the city limits. The "shootout at the OK Corral" was due to a corrupt local sheriff (Wyatt Earp) and his brothers trying to get an armed band of rural settlers (the Clantons) to surrender the heat while in town.

The founders never intended to give every American an inalienable right to walk around with an arsenal, nor was it ever believed that the people would overthrow the government periodically to keep it honest. If so, then Washington would never have put down the Whiskey Rebellion, the suppression of which remains the precedent for the Federal right of taxation.

Here we see the consequence of words changing their meaning over a period of centuries.

[Number6]

It's obvious that's what HE thinks it says.

Show me a dictionary that says the definition of "Good behavior" is "lifetime job security".

Tell me, do you think the Second Amendment is only about having weapons for a national guard-type militia since they didn't have a standing army?

gounion, my friend, please don't continue this line saying because the Constitution doesn't say "lifetime" because it's a losing argument. The Constitution also doesn't say anything about granting the Congress the power to raise and support the creation of an Air Force or Space Force, only an Army and Navy. Using your line of argument, because neither specifically mentioned they are therefor illegal. It's a false argument. This article from the John Marshall Center explains it better than I or others on this board can.

A justice’s tenure is outlined in Article III, Section I of the Constitution:

“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

The phrase “during good behavior” has been interpreted to mean that a judge can remain in office for the duration of their lifetime, unless they are removed from office for misconduct, or retire from their post voluntarily. Once a judge has assumed the bench, they may hold that position for the remainder of their lives if they so wish.

The premise behind instituting lifetime appointments was to reinforce the judiciary’s role as an independent branch of the U.S. Government. In theory, by giving federal judges and Supreme Court justices lifetime tenure that exceeds congressional or presidential term limits, they are insulated from the political pressures the executive and legislative branches could exert. Additionally, a judge cannot be recalled simply because their ideology has shifted since their appointment further insulating the judiciary against political reprisals from the other branches of government. Although the theory has been tested (see our FAQ entry about Justice Samuel Chase below for an example of political pressure on a justice), the majority of the Supreme Court’s justices have been perceived as sitting above the party politics that dominate the everyday actions of members of the legislative and executive branches.
John Marshall Center

[gounion]

gounion, my friend, please don't continue this line saying because the Constitution doesn't say "lifetime" because it's a losing argument. The Constitution also doesn't say anything about granting the Congress the power to raise and support the creation of an Air Force or Space Force, only an Army and Navy. Using your line of argument, because neither specifically mentioned they are therefor illegal. It's a false argument. This article from the John Marshall Center explains it better than I or others on this board can.

has been interpreted

I agree, that's how it has been interpreted.

Doesn't mean that's what it says, now, does it? Others may interpret it differently.

[ZoWie]

For whatever reason, the system we have in place is that the Federalist Society tells the Republican Party who to nominate, and that party packs the Court with ideologically vetted patsies who will advance one special interest. For whatever reason, whether bad luck or something more sinister, Democrats don't nominate justices any more.

I don't have a solution for that one.

[Number6]

has been interpreted

I agree, that's how it has been interpreted.

Doesn't mean that's what it says, now, does it? Others may interpret it differently.

Yes it does in the language of their day. Others may interrupt it differently but they're opinion isn't law.