(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(D) Julie Gonzales
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
40%
20%
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Hetal Doshi
50%
40%↓
30%
(D) Jeff Bridges
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
50%↑
40%↓
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Wanda James
(D) Milat Kiros
80%
20%
10%↓
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Alex Kelloff
(R) H. Scheppelman
60%↓
40%↓
30%↑
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) E. Laubacher
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
30%↑
20%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
55%↓
45%↑
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Shannon Bird
(D) Manny Rutinel
45%↓
30%
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
I saw a headline today saying 2/3 of Americans are now in favor of term limits for Supreme Court Justices. I had to ponder that a bit to determine how I felt about it. I decided I might be in favor if the one term was sufficiently long enough to potentially span more than one presidential administration. 10-year terms should do the trick.
In theory, each party would then get roughly the same number of “bites at the apple” over an extended period, hopefully keeping the Court more centrally situated in ideology. Big sweeping changes like the recent overturn of the concept of an implied right to privacy would be less rare because the justices who would be tempted to implement such things would know it would be undone within the decade or so, hopefully dampening such desires.
Then we could all turn our focus back to such principles as case law and precedence. What a novel idea.
Of course, I am always willing to listen to the other side of the coin, if anyone would like to offer one.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments