... please slap me.
Dig the ages of our 26 oldest senators.
| State | Name | Party | Age |
| California | Feinstein | Democratic | 87 |
| Iowa | Grassley | Republican | 87 |
| Alabama | Shelby | Republican | 86 |
| Oklahoma | Inhofe | Republican | 86 |
| Vermont | Leahy | Democratic | 80 |
| Vermont | Sanders | Independent - Dem Caucus | 79 |
| Kentucky | McConnell | Republican | 78 |
| Idaho | Risch | Republican | 77 |
| Maryland | Cardin | Democratic | 77 |
| Maine | King | Independent - Dem Caucus | 76 |
| Illinois | Durbin | Democratic | 76 |
| Connecticut | Blumenthal | Democratic | 74 |
| Massachusetts | Markey | Democratic | 74 |
| Delaware | Carper | Democratic | 74 |
| New Hampshire | Shaheen | Democratic | 74 |
| Utah | Romney | Republican | 73 |
| West Virginia | Manchin | Democratic | 73 |
| Hawaii | Hirono | Democratic | 73 |
| Oregon | Wyden | Democratic | 71 |
| Massachusetts | Warren | Democratic | 71 |
| Rhode Island | Reed | Democratic | 71 |
| Missouri | Blunt | Republican | 71 |
| Michigan | Stabenow | Democratic | 70 |
| Washington | Murray | Democratic | 70 |
| New York | Schumer | Democratic | 70 |
| Arkansas | Boozman | Republican | 70 |
These people are pathetic. None of them need the money. For the most part, they are voting robots. They come from deeply-partisan states, too. Seriously, does anyone think that if Blumenthal or Romney decided to retire, they wouldn't be instantly replaced by a younger model of themselves?
What are they doing?
This is further support for my thesis that the government is way too big. If it was about half its current size, it might not matter all that much if the residents of Casa de Mañana were running it.
 |
| What a loser. |
5 comments:
On the plus side, so long as they are "serving" in the Congress, they aren't drawing the gold-plated pensions. Presumably.
You see, they are just trying to do their part to help the federal government control its profligate spending!
I think I would have more (well some) respect for politicians if there were term limits.
Garage Logic has guest after guest that categorically refuse to run for office because of what it has become. The latest was a black woman who decimated the Roseville School Board for their support of CRT and BLM. She s a self made woman and a lawyer, whose Mother was abusive and a drug attic. Fortunately, her father was able get custody (must not have been Minneapolis/Hennepin county).
Say 5 terms as a Representative, 3 terms as Senator. And since we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Supreme court is a political as it gets. Those need to be something a little odd, so they don't line up well with Presidental elections.
You know, maybe work in relegation somehow? The only good thing about soccer is relegation.
Now I have an image of KT walking around the Senate with his little list, slapping everyone who is on it.
As for the Supreme Court, since there are 9 of them we could just have staggered 18 year terms, so one would retire and be replaced every 2 years. Maybe schedule them for the 1st and 3rd year of each presidential term. That seems like a reasonable amount of time, and every president would get 2 per term.
I like that idea. Politicians need to be slapped a whole lot more. :-)
Staggering for 1st and 3rd year makes sense... So that will never happen.
It made me go look. At one time there were 10 Justices. But congress changed that to stop Jackson from being able to nominate. They reduced it to 7. Later it was increased to 9.
Old age did benefit the people, stopping Roosevelt from packing the court. He had nominated 9 during his reign. All were confirmed.
The Permanent Bureaucracy is at least as dangerous to our freedoms as the politicians are; they also need to be "term limited".
There should be no government-funded (i.e. the tax-payers are in hock) pensions. Let they use 401Ks and SS, like everyone else.
The US Constitution does not grant the supreme Court (capitalization intentional, as per the US Constitution) the supreme power it exercises. In fact, actually *reading* the Constitution will show that the *all* federal courts are creatures of Congress; for, other than some explicitly enumerated categories, the Congress has the authority to grant or withdraw judicial jurisdiction.
Also, the presidency doesn't lawfully have the near-dictatorial powers that President have been exercising since at least the Great Depression. The President's power is to *execute* the legally expressed will of Congress.
Our high school civics classes lied to us: the assertion of "3 co-equal branches of government" is false. It is a myth created to fool us into bowing to judicial supremacy.
Post a Comment