Here's a perfect example of the arrogance of our Federal bureaucrats..........

    Results 1 to 3 of 3
    1. #1
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2013
      Location
      SC
      Posts
      1,217

      Here's a perfect example of the arrogance of our Federal bureaucrats..........

      IRS Head A No-Show At Impeachment Hearing <http://www.law360.com/tax/articles/799495?nl_pk=3b8e4102-e3ad-4b5d-9def-b6a527bae84e&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=tax>

      A congressional hearing that was ultimately intended to impeach IRS commissioner John Koskinen for purportedly suppressing evidence of the agency’s political bias against conservative groups devolved into partisan sparring on Tuesday after the commissioner declined to take the hot seat before a House committee.

      This is why we need term limits on elective office and term limits on presidential appointments, including the SCOTUS

    2. #2
      Senior Member Steve M1911A1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Northwest Washington State
      Posts
      7,627
      Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
      ...This is why we need term limits on elective office and term limits on presidential appointments, including the SCOTUS
      Term limits for elected officials won't do the job. The same "useful idiots" (Stalin's terminology) who elected the incumbent fool who represents you will elect his duplicate the next time 'round.
      The only thing that really works is the education of the electorate, specifically in critical-thinking skills, and amassing real-life experience. (It is unfortunate that very few of us receive either critical-thinking practice or real-life experience, nowadays.)

      However, term limits on appointed positions, working like so-called "sunset laws," would be a definite asset. If they work.
      I worry that these term limits will be just as, um, successful as "sunset laws" currently are. That is, both the appointers and the appointees will find ways to weasel around the statutorily-imposed limits.
      But it's worth a try.

      Term limits on the Supremes would, I think, be counter-productive.
      As we see now in, for instance, Washington State, where the state's highest-court judges have to stand periodically for election, the judgeships become politicized and the judges partisan. This is definitely not a good thing.
      Permanent appointment, with removal only by means of impeachment, serves to isolate high-court judges from political partisanship.
      Proof of the benefit of permanent appointment can be seen in judges who "changed their stripes" after being appointed and seated, and thereby freed from politics. There haven't been many of these changes, but there have been some.

    3. #3
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2016
      Location
      Wisconsin
      Posts
      165
      Right on SteveM1911A1, you called it! Most people have no idea its their congressman or senator that's might be part of the problem. They always think its some other congressmen or senator.

    Sponsored Links

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •