The right thing to do, in any permanently tenured position?

[sear]

The right thing to do, in any permanently tenured position?

There is no term limit on British royalty. I'm 62 years old, and Queen Elizabeth has been the queen all my life.
There are a few currently serving SCOTUS members that might wish to step down, before they fall down (aka "drop dead").

Is there a rule?
Is there a guideline?
If they die in office, when are they going to get the chance to get that mountain cabin and go fly-fishing, instead of hearing oral arguments?

[Abbey Marie]

The right thing to do, in any permanently tenured position?

There is no term limit on British royalty. I'm 62 years old, and Queen Elizabeth has been the queen all my life.
There are a few currently serving SCOTUS members that might wish to step down, before they fall down (aka "drop dead").

Is there a rule?
Is there a guideline?
If they die in office, when are they going to get the chance to get that mountain cabin and go fly-fishing, instead of hearing oral arguments?

I was just talking about this with my husband. I think the combination of power and a limited work schedule, make both jobs hard to walk away from. Plenty of "off" time for hobbies, and no one to tell you what to do.

[sear]

So we should reduce the free time available to these employees, so they'll quit out of selfishness?

[Abbey Marie]

So we should reduce the free time available to these employees, so they'll quit out of selfishness?

You tell me...

[sear]

Airline pilots have an age limit.
Reach the limit, and go fishing.

[Abbey Marie]

Airline pilots have an age limit.
Reach the limit, and go fishing.

Judges and Queens can do their jobs without fabulous eyesight and good stamina.

[sear]

#6

In many cases yes.

BUT !!

Faculties can degrade with advanced age.
And with lifetime appointments, an organization like SCOTUS can become a geriatric repository. (is it not now?)

If an airliner pilot messes up, s/he can kill a few hundred aboard, and a few more hundred on the ground, alive at that time.

SCOTUS messes up, and it can bedevil hundreds of millions for generations, if not perpetuity.

[Abbey Marie]

#6

In many cases yes.

BUT !!

Faculties can degrade with advanced age.
And with lifetime appointments, an organization like SCOTUS can become a geriatric repository. (is it not now?)

If an airliner pilot messes up, s/he can kill a few hundred aboard, and a few more hundred on the ground, alive at that time.

SCOTUS messes up, and it can bedevil hundreds of millions for generations, if not perpetuity.

You would need a whole majority to mess up at the same time. And don't forget young clerks do the research. Other than babies in utero, generally no lives are lost.

[sear]

"You would need a whole majority to mess up at the same time." #8

That's one possible scenario, but not the only possible scenario.
SCOTUS is populated by an odd number of jurists DELIBERATELY to avoid tie / deadlock rulings.

And many many pivotal, determinative decisions have been made 5:4.

"And don't forget young clerks do the research." #8

And geriatric justices heed that research,
or not.

[Abbey Marie]

"You would need a whole majority to mess up at the same time." #8

That's one possible scenario, but not the only possible scenario.
SCOTUS is populated by an odd number of jurists DELIBERATELY to avoid tie / deadlock rulings.

And many many pivotal, determinative decisions have been made 5:4.

"And don't forget young clerks do the research." #8

And geriatric justices heed that research,
or not.

You do not understand the USSC well, and you are creating alarmist scenarios. I expect you really need the last word, though, so go for it.

[sear]

"You do not understand the USSC well," A #10

You haven't included ONE single quotation to support your disparaging insult.

You and I both know why:
you didn't
because you can't,
because I didn't.

"and you are creating alarmist scenarios." A #10

You can mislabel it any way you like.
But you telling lies does not disprove my assertion.
It would take logical refutation to do that, and that's clearly vastly beyond your capability.

"I expect you really need the last word, though, so go for it."

I correct conspicuous error when I have the time.
But a poster like you could keep me extremely busy. So I'll hope to limit the exchange.

It would go easier on us both if you'd stop lying for a change.

[Abbey Marie]

"You do not understand the USSC well," A #10

You haven't included ONE single quotation to support your disparaging insult.

You and I both know why:
you didn't
because you can't,
because I didn't.

"and you are creating alarmist scenarios." A #10

You can mislabel it any way you like.
But you telling lies does not disprove my assertion.
It would take logical refutation to do that, and that's clearly vastly beyond your capability.

"I expect you really need the last word, though, so go for it."

I correct conspicuous error when I have the time.
But a poster like you could keep me extremely busy. So I'll hope to limit the exchange.

It would go easier on us both if you'd stop lying for a change.

Calling me a liar is a very dumb move. And proves to me that you are a moron. I don't care to interact with morons.

[sear]

"Calling me a liar is a very dumb move." A #12

Then please stop lying about me. I will QUOTE you.

"You do not understand the USSC well" A

This clearly a gratuitous swipe.
And it's groundless. I understand the USSC well enough.

If you will quote one single assertion I've posted that demonstrates my USSC understanding is deficient, I will apologize, and retract me calling you a liar.

And the following isn't much better:

"and you are creating alarmist scenarios." A

"Creating" means:

create (krê-ât´) verb, transitive
created, creating, creates
To cause to exist; bring into being. See synonyms at found1.

adjective
Archaic.
Created.

[Middle English createn, from Latin creâre, creât-.] *
It is not "alarmist" to state an obvious truth. And it's been a well known reality for centuries that in a 9 member law court, ONE central "swing" vote can determine the outcome of the ruling; as the other 8 justices can, AND OFTEN HAVE canceled one another out.

That's not: "creating alarmist scenarios." It's simple arithmetic.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Abbey Marie]

Here you go sear, know thyself:



moron



(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun) mo·ron \ˈmȯr-ˌän\




a person who is notably stupid or lacking in
good judgment : a very stupid person

[aboutime]

Here you go sears, know thyself:



moron



(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun) mo·ron \ˈmȯr-ˌän\




a person who is notably stupid or lacking in
good judgment : a very stupid person





Abbey. Sounds to me like sear is so impressed, and wrapped-up in himself/herself, that nothing any of us say here is permitted to be said unless sear approves.
That's the comedy of arrogance, ignorance, hatred, and selfishness sear practices.
A really miserable, lonely place all alone with itself.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Calling me a liar is a very dumb move. And proves to me that you are a moron. I don't care to interact with morons.

I really did not need this new evidence to know that sear is apparently awash in worship of his own infinite knowledge of everything in the universe.
His calling likely the most honest member at this forum(yes there are others) a liar, just rings the greatest bell ever known to man.
If he had challenged by accusing you of being in error, then he would saved face and not deserved the thrashing he will sooooooon get, IMHO.
Lying is a deliberate act.. simply being in error is not--and this in no ways says you were either my friend..
Your charge of such being a moronic move made by sear, is dead on the mark, IMHO..--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

I really did not need this new evidence to know that sear is apparently awash in worship of his own infinite knowledge of everything in the universe.
His calling likely the most honest member at this forum(yes there are others) a liar, just rings the greatest bell ever known to man.
If he had challenged by accusing you of being in error, then he would saved face and not deserved the thrashing he will sooooooon get, IMHO.
Lying is a deliberate act.. simply being in error is not--and this in no ways says you were either my friend..
Your charge of such being a moronic move made by sear, is dead on the mark, IMHO..--Tyr

Thank you, Tyr. I know that you understand the reason for not accepting such an accusation. I rarely return fire, but sometimes it just really is warranted.

[sear]

#17

I exposed the lie explicitly by quoting it.
It was an unsubstantiated accusation.

I invited ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE from the accuser OR ANYONE ELSE to support it.

NONE has been forthcoming.

Compound your libel all you like. It doesn't alter reality.

I don't recall having misrepresented legal realities about SCOTUS.

Perhaps you two can enjoy what little may be left of your Easter without concocting fictitious libel where it is clearly not justified.

[Gunny]

#17

I exposed the lie explicitly by quoting it.
It was an unsubstantiated accusation.

I invited ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE from the accuser OR ANYONE ELSE to support it.

NONE has been forthcoming.

Compound your libel all you like. It doesn't alter reality.

I don't recall having misrepresented legal realities about SCOTUS.

Perhaps you two can enjoy what little may be left of your Easter without concocting fictitious libel where it is clearly not justified.Feel free to correct me where I am wrong but isn't "Queen of England" mostly a name? She has no real power? Are your politicians in Parliament so different from our government?

On the basis of your point ... I agree. Go fishing. Your time is over. Bow out gracefully. I don't walk into the ring anymore. When it"s time to go, it's time to go.

[Elessar]

#17

I exposed the lie explicitly by quoting it.
It was an unsubstantiated accusation.

I invited ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE from the accuser OR ANYONE ELSE to support it.

NONE has been forthcoming.

Compound your libel all you like. It doesn't alter reality.

I don't recall having misrepresented legal realities about SCOTUS.

Perhaps you two can enjoy what little may be left of your Easter without concocting fictitious libel where it is clearly not justified.

In all my years in various forums, I have NEVER seen a narrow-minded person such as you to be so
full of himself.

You have not even the manners of a goose.