General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease, stop with the TERM LIMITS bs.
Just watched the IL. Senate debate. Good & questionably points on all three, all are miles ahead of any republican.
However, for God’s sake STOP going along with agreeing to f”ing term limits! We HAVE term limits. They are called elections! Term limits are corporations wet dream. Corporations have the money to fund their choice endlessly. Even if a miracle occurs and we are able to pass HR1, I don’t want to loose someone who is doing an excellent job due to term limits. If they are not doing a good job, then vote them out. Term limits are a corporation’s wet dream . Democrats, please stop giving lip service to this nonsense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Americanme
(440 posts)I've been saying this for years.
Conjuay
(2,998 posts)
EuterpeThelo
(274 posts)For every AOC, there's a Bernie. We need them both. Agreed we should primary those who aren't effective, but I for one don't WANT to throw out the most experienced people in the job just for the sake of "fresh" faces who aren't masters of the process/procedure that our more seasoned Congresscritters often are and who don't yet have the established relationships/connections to get things done. Time is an arbitrary measure; it should be a meritocracy.
thesquanderer
(12,930 posts)It would help if there weren't a party establishment with their thumbs heavily on the scale for any incumbent.
I understand why they do it... being an incumbent gives someone a natural advantage in the general. But it does complicate the OP's argument of, "We HAVE term limits. They are called elections!" That's true... but the primary elections don't occur on a level playing field.
Also, "term limits" can be implemented different ways. There's a difference between limiting a congressperson to, say, 12 years of service, vs. limiting them to 30, or 40. I'm not sure the arguments against those are entirely the same.
Callie1979
(1,235 posts)
CommonHumanity
(355 posts)everyonematters
(4,056 posts)If you have term limits, you will have people running and serving for the novelty of it or to pad their resume. The big problem is the money in politics.
Walleye
(44,180 posts)The Republicans think of politics is a great little moneymaker at this point. Our government is being ruined by wealthy people who think the United States is there for their amusement
Walleye
(44,180 posts)Michiblue
(31 posts). . . of the incredible leadership of Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most effective Speaker in U.S. history
sop
(18,044 posts)And if it were possible to pass a term limits law in Congress, and have it hold up to legal challenges in the Supreme Court, it would also be possible to pass a campaign finance law seriously limiting or even banning all corporate and dark money.
MadameButterfly
(3,902 posts)I don't know what term limits has to do with it.
Maru Kitteh
(31,464 posts)That coin being the power which works to preserve itself, in the guise of serving the populace. Protecting incumbents from fascist opposition should be the purpose of the party, not placing their fingers on the scale to protect incumbents from Democratic voter support for other Democratic candidates. It makes sheep of us under the charge of herders. That’s gross, and should be left to the g.o.pedos party.
MadameButterfly
(3,902 posts)preferred outcome in Democratic primaries. I just don't think term limits will solve it. Incumbents aren't the only people who benefit from this. Over and over I've watched the DNC pick their candidate and MSNBC promotes them. If not incumbents, they'll pick someone else who they believe will preserve their values.
We do have to stop making it political suicide for a new candidate to challenge an incumbent or a party favorite. We should always have the best candidate possible as demonstrated by elections. The voters should decide.
Maru Kitteh
(31,464 posts)comment on the reasons why finance reform and term limit enactment are difficult to actually realize. It’s the entrenched preservation of power, maintaining and protecting itself I think.
harumph
(3,161 posts)You're right. Term limits could work if other changes were put in place.
MadameButterfly
(3,902 posts)without the term limits
usaf-vet
(7,779 posts)
stopdiggin
(15,229 posts)
PatSeg
(52,696 posts)Term limits could deprive us of some serious and effective public servants.
agingdem
(8,805 posts)people vote name recognition/personal biases...and once elected they want to stay in office...stature/taxpayer funded travel/free healthcare/media attention...their supposed calling to improve the lives of their constituents becomes a way of life/an obsession/a pathway to wealth...and there's no way in hell they are going to give that up...which is why twenty-four members of Congress are 80 years old and older/eight-six members are 70 years old and older..
Just so you know this isn't an ageism thing...I'm 77..I know my limitations both physically and cognitively...
themaguffin
(5,034 posts)
tirebiter
(2,682 posts)
ibegurpard
(17,080 posts)Drastic limits on outside money in politics... which would require a constitutional amendment considering Citizens United.
Ranked choice voting and then additional political parties... in that order.
Those are the first few that come to mind.
ybbor
(1,728 posts)They make no sense when elections can eliminate the bad ones. It’s like saying any profession should get rid of those after they have finally become competent at their jobs. If they suck, as in all professions, you can get rid of them.
Emile
(41,563 posts)
Martin Eden
(15,476 posts)Yes, there is a problem of corruption in which embedded politicians gain advantage over potentially better young candidate. But term limits go after a symptom rather than the root cause of corruption, which is big special interest money in our electoral and legislative system.
Term limits would discourage true public servants from seeking a career in elective office, and expel good representatives just when they're getting really good at their jobs. Without correcting the root cause of the problem, big money would finance candidates motivated by what they could get from the office, including lucrative positions upon leaving office.
Now, please excuse me for being a grammar nazi:
The word "loose" rhymes with juice. I think you meant "lose," which rhymes with booze.
This has become my pet peeve, because I see it so often. Again, I apologize. 
MichMan
(16,923 posts)"Term limits would discourage true public servants from seeking a career in elective office..."
John Dingell Jr. from Michigan was in Congress 59 years from 1955-2015. By the way, he succeeded his father John Sr who served from 1933-1955. John Jr. retired in 1995 and was succeeded in office by his wife, Debbie Dingell who still hold office.
That means someone named Dingell has held the seat for 93 straight years. Not saying they didn't do a good job, but IMO we shouldn't have political dynasties lasting 9 decades.
How many other "true public servants" in that district just gave up knowing that they had zero chance of ever being elected?
DownriverDem
(6,991 posts)We have term limits in Michigan for governor, LT governor, AG and SOS and a 12 year in office plan for other state offices. All it does is get rid of good folks.
Polybius
(21,667 posts)Repeal the 22nd.
themaguffin
(5,034 posts)Polybius
(21,667 posts)Plus, imagine 82 year old Trump vs 66 year old Obama? Obama would crush him.
themaguffin
(5,034 posts)
cab67
(3,671 posts)- a colony of fire ants would stand a good chance of crushing Old Colostomy.
Pototan
(3,041 posts)what would you rather have had, an Obama third term or a Trump first term?
tinrobot
(12,007 posts)
radical noodle
(10,518 posts)For years I thought I was "missing" something in the term limits argument. Many Democrats seemed to agree with it and I kept searching for the reason I should. I couldn't find much in the way of a benefit unless we could just term limit republicans and not Democrats. In addition to the points you mention, I've always thought experience counts for something.
There does come a time that a brain addled 90+ year old who seems to not know who he/she is or where they are should be gently sent home and replaced.
otchmoson
(307 posts)then we don't need a law . . . we need to educate and get out the vote. On the other hand, unelected officials DO need term limits . . . to be determined by the electorate through their democratically elected officials. I don't believe a judgeship should be a lifetime appointment. A 35-40 year old appointee is certainly different from that person 50 years hence. Some offices (FED chairman, FBI director, etc.) should be for more than 4 years, but length to be determined by voters/congress. Just my 2-cents.
mopinko
(73,481 posts)new congress people dont hire off the street. esp if they r replacing someone in their own party, they hire ppl already doing the job.
you’d just b shuffling the deck. period.
relayerbob
(7,401 posts)tinrobot
(12,007 posts)Term limits do nothing to address those issues, they only give the powers behind the scenes more power.
cab67
(3,671 posts)Supreme Court justices.
Given how much life expectancy has grown since the Constitution was written, it's too easy for stacked court to cause real damage for many decades.
I understand and accept the rationale behind institutional memory, and if we can get a good justice on the Court, I'd want that person to be there for a while. But I don't think putting an 18-year or 22-year limit on justice terms is a bad thing.
ibegurpard
(17,080 posts)unlike politicians with elections.
So yeah I would argue that in this case limits on their terms are something that should be considered.
Mysterian
(6,268 posts)Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CaptainTruth
(8,113 posts)stopdiggin
(15,229 posts)which is why they are called life time APPOINTMENTS
and a rather different thing
CaptainTruth
(8,113 posts)I've proposed 36 year terms with one justice being replaced every 4 years, first-in, first-out. That way every president gets 1 appointment per term.
Within that framework I'm sure we could work out a way to handle deaths resignations etc.
LogDog75
(1,189 posts)I'm of the belief the Supreme Court needs to have turn-over of justices on a regular basis and no justice can serve beyond age 65. My idea is as follows:
1. The current longest serving justice will be required to "retire" within 2 years and the President will nominate a replacement.
2. The next current longest serving justice will be replaced, if they've served 8 years or more, in 2 years. Continue this process until all justices serving over 8 years have retired.
3. Any current justices who have served less than 8 years will be replaced one at a time every two years. If two justices were appointed in the same year, the justice appointed first would be replaced first and two years later the other justice.
4. Once all justices have been replaced, every 2 years thereafter a justice would be replace meaning no president could appoint more than 2 justices per term unless a justice dies or retires.
This plan would prevent a Supreme Court from being to Democratic or republican leaning for years. T
CaptainTruth
(8,113 posts)It looks like that system would allow every president to appoint (nominate) 2 justices per term, yes?
In my proposal I was thinking of trying to keep the SCOTUS lineup more stable & not allow any POTUS to idealogically influence it too much, only allowing POTUS 1 nominee per term.
Honestly, given how so many SCOTUS decisions in the modern era have come down 5-4, either way, I'm inclined to try & limit POTUS to 1 nominee per term, not 2.
Mr. Mustard 2023
(358 posts)Money in politics is the problem, so even if we did enact term limits they'll just bribe them faster, so to speak. Promising them cush jobs will take more emphasis, because they'll be termed out sooner.
Term limits will not help imo, as long as we can legally bribe our elected leaders, and others.
leftstreet
(39,663 posts)Like the rest of us
Set qualifications OTHER than birth status and age before they can even qualify to run
Beausoleil
(3,011 posts)Once unlimited money is out of the equation, term limits really becomes a moot point because the lesser funded candidates can compete and extremists do not win all the primaries (their loud chatter won't earn them as much money).
harumph
(3,161 posts)3 term limit for each representative
2 term limit for each senator.
If the parties cannot come up with new blood with fresh ideas after 6 or 12 years respectively, then we need a substantially amended constitution - because this "f-king" piece of paper as 'W' allegedly called it, isn't cutting the mustard. I think anyone can see that the so-called 'guardrails' are really overcooked noodles supported by toothpicks.
Up-thread - someone made a comment about Pelosi. I agree she's great. But for every Pelosi, there's a standing zombie like Mitch McConnell. Where is Mitch nowadays? Anybody remember Feinstein? Holy f**k people - that was embarrassing! Ted Cruz was elected first in 2013. Wouldn't it be great if he was just done? Chuck Grassley first took office in 1981. And there was Kay Grainger - who was found by a reporter to be in assisted living (memory care).
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/14/kay-granger-dementia-dc-media-00210317
Term limits would incentivize the parties not to rely on so few people and to cultivate new talent. And please - all this talk of unique talent (ooo-la-la!) that we would be missing. There are many, many talented people in this country - probably some on this board - who are educated - good thinkers - good speakers - and could learn parliamentary procedure (yes, that's what it's called even in the US).
Regarding the "constitution," IMO, the unilateral pardon power of the president needs to be replaced by limiting the chief executive to recommending pardons that are reviewed by an appointed non-partisan committee that is completely independent from the president and has guaranteed funding. Many democracies not mentally chained to 18th century norms do it that way.
No more quid pro quo.
IMO Federal elections should be funded solely by tax dollars (this amt will be capped according to inflation) and will run for a limited period - not to exceed...
Our judicial system is painfully reactive and treats every new insult to justice like it's a new g-damned question at hand - when it's the same old shit. The courts need to have meaningful (i.e., painful) sanction power. Yet, they don't - and Trump et al. continues to overwhelm the courts with meritless cack.
We have a poorly functioning democracy and probably half of the adults are functionally illiterate. That's where we are and we need to make substantive changes, not just redecorate.
I have it on the authority of a poster in another thread that the constitution will never be amended again. If I truly believed that, I'd be packing my bags.
stopdiggin
(15,229 posts)And - conversely, would very likely 'empower' the 'behind the scenes' influence of money and non-governmental actors and organization.
If you and your mates want 'new talent' - you're quite right, there's plenty of it around - you have every right to pull the lever for them - and it's not at all impossible for a newbie to prevail. (Mamdani ?) And - in almost every jurisdiction - the bar to placing that person's name on the ballot has been kept (by design) very modest and approachable. Get out there and promote your 'new ideas' and 'new faces'!
Meanwhile - let ME vote for who I want to ...
Mosby
(19,383 posts)75 years old for all three branches and I would change the term to 4 years for all members of congress. Mandatory retirement for all judges at 75, including the SC.
Maraya1969
(23,467 posts)Our Dems are so smart and they get better as they age. They blow the other side away. Bondi was so shook up - it was a sight to behold!
Layzeebeaver
(2,219 posts)FOR REPUBLICANS ONLY.
stopdiggin
(15,229 posts)I'd like to keep my options available to me - thank you very much.'
And - having 'others' decide what the options will be for me to vote on ... Gosh, I dunno' - sounds just a little 'bread and circus-y' and big brotherish - when you stop and give it any thought to speak of.
FascismIsDeath
(110 posts)Wonder Why
(6,709 posts)in office, then immediately abandoned it as they realized they were limiting it themselves so they can't be trusted.
So term limits drawn up ONLY when there is a majority Democratic Senate, Congress and President.
It doesn't get voted on until the repugs win the elections but haven't taken office.
It becomes effective only when the repugs take office.
No bonuses or any other perks.
You get in office. You get paid for the duration only.
You get medical benefits only for duration.
You get COBRA for 18 months afterwards just like on the outside.
You get money in a retirement fund just like any other job only for the time you served.
You get no other perks after leaving office such as the ability to keep campaign money or any other benefit.
You can't work for a lobbying group or a government contractor or potential one for 2 years after leaving office.
Shrek
(4,403 posts)
Torchlight
(6,579 posts)for me to take seriously. Appeals to emotion just aren’t my cup of tea, and when the strongest arguments made are no more than bumper-sticker slogans, I can’t really call it an argument at all.
marble falls
(71,409 posts)... it only mean nothing if you don't vote.
hay rick
(9,494 posts)Florida politicians come up through a system in which statewide offices have 8 year term limits. The 120 Florida House members and 40 State Senators are paid around $30,000 a year- not enough to support a family. The people that are able to do this are in a position where they can take 3 months leave from their business or come from family wealth. Because these jobs do not create a professional career path, the greater incentive is to use the position and contacts to benefit themselves and those who have supported them and will continue to benefit them in the future. The incentives are perverse and grease the wheels of corruption.
If we do not offer politicians a path to developing professional excellence we will get the mediocrity and widespread corruption we claim we wish to avoid.
markodochartaigh
(5,263 posts)
ABC123Easy
(172 posts)While I do agree with your points on elections and money in politics, I'm for term limits, laws removing that money in politics you refer to, and anti gerrymandering laws.
As we've seen, we can't rely solely upon voting people out. If that were true, Lauren Boebert, MTG, Jim Jordan, etc....wouldn't keep getting elected.
I live in NC where the GOP has rigged the districts to the point where it would take near 70% of the vote going to the Dems in order for them to take control of the general assembly.
Just saying, relying on elections doesn't cut it.
cab67
(3,671 posts)- getting rid of gerrymandering would also solve this problem.
Every seat in the House should be competitive for every election.
markpkessinger
(8,888 posts). . . yoju still have to contend with decennial redistricting. Redistricting MUST occur in order to account for shifting populations.
markodochartaigh
(5,263 posts)A senator or representative takes at least a year for them and their staff to find their footing in the system. And even longer to make meaningful connections with their peers.
Lobbyists are hired because they know the system and already gave plenty of connections with big corporations and our oiligarchs.
Term limits ensure that the lobbyists will increase their power and elected representatives' power will decrease in relation. It's like putting first graders into a class of high school seniors.
If you are for term limits, you are advocating that elected representatives should have less power than lobbyists chosen by the corporations that the representatives are supposed to regulate.
ALBliberal
(3,294 posts)Term limited? I really don’t like the idea at all. I could name other great senators as well.
pandr32
(14,052 posts) Exp
(844 posts)1. Lobbyists will have the advantage over a constant wave of Freshmen Congress members.
2. It takes years to use the rules correctly.
3. Seniority to head committees takes years of experience.
And yes, corporate lobbyists WOULD LOVE to have new, inexperienced faces coming in every four years.
betsuni
(28,914 posts)They want a choice to vote for their own representation when they like them. If they think about it.
Term limits is one of the phony divisions splitting Democrats into "establishment" (corrupt) or "progressive" (not corrupt). Obama talked about this fake BS division in his interview. Goals are the same, the only difference is strategy on how to reach those goals.
MatthewStLouis
(920 posts)Some of the things we really need are more transparency and campaign finance reform. I think we could also cut the GOP's "SAVE Act" crap off at the knees with our own "Safe and Sane Act". Everyone eligible to vote, automatically registered to vote and given a free voter ID. Also longer voting periods and mail-in voting nationwide.
tritsofme
(19,855 posts)candidate, because you know better than they do.
LogDog75
(1,189 posts)The president, governors, and elected mayors hold executive offices which have more power than other elected offices. Because of that, I favor executive officers be limited to no more than 2 terms.
For the U. S and state Supreme Courts, I favor 8 year term limits. Similar to the executive officers, Supreme Court justices have enormous power and influence over the laws of the federal and state governments. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of one or a small group of individuals for a long period of time.
As for House of Representatives, Senators, state and local offices, I think there should be no term limits. The voters should be the ones to decide who should represent them at every election.
Callie1979
(1,235 posts)Incumbency is a huge advantage & hard to overcome.
Too many very old people looking horrible.
Every State would ratify it.
We have term limits for President.
Dave says
(5,360 posts)
Figarosmom
(10,788 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,683 posts)Imagine showing Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders the door years ago.
Worse... The idea of term limits assumes there in an inexhaustible supply of worthy candidates.
Don't make me make a list of people too stupid or corrupt be in office. Lookin' at you Louie Gohmert.