HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I've never supported term...

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:41 PM

I've never supported term limits, especially at the federal level.

In my view, term limits are already in place - elections. That's the process we "hire" representatives. That ought to be the process we hire replacements. Not some arbitrary calendar determination.

We have these tools - Primaries and general elections. District wide and state wide. Nationally, as well, for that matter.

What is the purpose of term limitations? Have they benefited our political process?

18 replies, 1901 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to pinto (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:44 PM

1. I agree, and always have believed it.

Experience and knowledge come with time; why throw that out arbitrarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #1)

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:45 PM

2. Yeah, experience counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #1)

Tue May 20, 2014, 06:02 PM

18. If we only have newcomers in office, lobbyists will totally rule - all the time.

Not that they don't do it now, but it will be even worse.

They know how the "levers of power" work and how to use them to their advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:51 PM

3. I don't either, however... This would be Reagan's ninth term...

...even if he was just a brain, floating preserved in a glass jar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:38 AM

12. I don't buy that, nor do I buy that Clinton would've been a 4 term President

No matter how charismatic the leader is, voters eventually get tired of the party in power and vote for someone else. The combined events of the depression and World War II were the biggest crisis in the nation's history, save for the Civil War. Only under these extraordinary circumstances did FDR get elected to 4 terms.

Reagan would've been a 3 term President and Clinton might've been as well. Rarely, if ever, would you see anybody get more than 3 terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 05:16 PM

4. I would like to see cognitive testing added to the physical they take once a year.

It would have prevented travesties like Strom Thurmond being carted in and having his minders tell him how to vote.

It would get men with obvious OMD out of office. Scalia would go.

Justice William O. Douglas would have stayed to the end, he was sharp as a tack.

Cognitive testing is not IQ testing. It's very different and it's over in 5 minutes. You will be tested by any doctor worth the initials when you're over 65. So should public officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #4)

Sun May 18, 2014, 07:59 PM

7. Douglas had dementia at the end.

He wrote an embarrassing opinion where he asserted a tree or swampland or even the air has the right to sue the government. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

After that opinion Douglas' colleagues on the court, both liberal and conservative, decided to not hear cases where he might be the deciding vote. They decided to hear them after he either retired or died. After he did retire he attempted to come back to the court to issue opinions. Clerks and other staff were ordered not to speak to him in order to keep him away. A sad end...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #7)

Sun May 18, 2014, 08:57 PM

8. Yes, it was. It would have been kinder to remove him at the end

over a failed physical.

He still might have forgotten he'd retired, dementia is like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 05:35 PM

5. not quite sure on this...take with suspicion

 

The PACs, think tanks, special interests do not have term limits. They are the ones that supply most of the information/ wording for the laws. They give them to staffers who pass them to the elected .
-
Term limits means they have to spend more money to re-connect with a new representative usually, unless they are already on the payroll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 07:00 PM

6. Part of me agrees, but...

another part of me wishes it actually worked that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #6)

Sun May 18, 2014, 09:45 PM

9. Yeah...

GOTV! For what it's worth, it's our role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:13 AM

10. They certainly don't benefit the process in the legislature:

they simply ensure that legislatures are always relatively uninformed and hence better targets for the lobbyists who are there year after year

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:32 AM

11. Yep, term limits are a fucking disaster on the state level

I understand the sentiment. The average age of congresscritters is as a higher if not higher than it's ever been. It's tempting to believe that getting new blood in there will change everything. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon May 19, 2014, 06:53 PM

15. That's been my experience

The most experienced people end up being the Lobbyists.

Fixing the problem of the lazy uninformed voter with term limits that remove good people from office just because... seems ill advised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 05:11 AM

13. I am now more for term limit than before.

For one, I see a selfish side to this in that so many of the law makers end up becoming rich, if not wealthy, after their stint as legislators. So term limit allows for more people to rotate through the system and spread the gravy to larger number if the population.
Second, even with the so much professed power to fire by electorate, what percentage of the obvious non performing legislators get voted out? I will say "damn too few of them". Clearly gerrymandering has forestalled whatever good that could come from the voters.
Third term limit, especially, for the SC will limit the damages of judges like Scalia and Thomas can inflict on society.
And there other reasons as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #13)

Mon May 19, 2014, 12:48 PM

14. I have generally been much against term limits

However I am concerned that they might be a more welcome development in regards to the super-gerrymandering that has occurred in some districts that make it damned near impossible for some incumbents to be voted out. Plus, with the dramatic advantages some incumbents hold in regards to campaign financing, it also makes it harder for anybody else to make inroads. I personally dislike the idea that some incumbents are so well-protected that they, not the voters, essentially decide when they are going to leave. That too seems largely undemocratic too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #13)

Mon May 19, 2014, 08:46 PM

17. getting the money out will fix most of that. i think term limits

will give the money a better chance to plan ahead for seats they know will be opening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 08:43 PM

16. term limits is a RW attempt to get more bang for their bucks

knowing when a particular politician HAS to go means the billionaires and their party and their think tanks can plan WAY ahead

and it appeals (but not solely) to the lazy and apathetic.

get the money out and the quality of reps and candidates will skyrocket

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread