Have we entered the twilight zone?
Low blood sugar. 100%. Get that man a Snickers.
The stocks thing isn’t new, he, AOC and others actually co-sponsored a bill banning members of Congress from owning individual stocks.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matt-gaetz-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-congress-stock-ban-bill/
Watch Gaetz run for governor (and then president?). Run, Gaetz, run. Most old school Regan Republicans would never go for this stuff. Limiting their own terms? Banning donations from lobbyists? Limiting SCOTUS terms and risk losing the theocratic supermajority? Gudouttahere.
Gaetz knows this. He also knows the establishment right wing media (Fox) is trying to make him the villain, “It’s not that Republicans can’t govern, it’s just that this one guy is an asshole.”
When Gaetz does shit like this, it makes him sound almost reasonable, right? Republican voters say, ok I think all that stuff would be good, so why won’t the rest of the party go along with it? Hmm, maybe Gaetz is right about House Republicans being part of the swamp. Maybe Gaetz is a true fighter for America and not the asshole that blonde lady on Fox said he was.
That’s the game. Gaetz is building some serious media coverage and name ID. I have to admit, the shit heal is making the most out of his time in the spotlight.
shit heal
Chaotic evil clerics are the worst.
+16 HP
-100 Dignity
Fucking Sharrans.
Did you watch the footage of Gaetz grilling the DEA on when were they going to delist marijuana as a schedule 1 drug and federally decriminalize it specifically addressing opioid crisis and THC being a viable alternative for pain management for many?
I totally agree with you. I was initially very confused, but it definitely diferentiates him from DeSantis.
What’s next? He turns on Trump?
He takes off his mask and your realize it was Santos all along
This….sounds…reasonable…? I’m with OP - confused
yeah. a tad shocking… like, whats the angle here? guess we will see what shakes out.
Suddenly, I’m uncomfortable with liking something this guy wants. Sure let’s have these incredibly populist reforms, but I sure as shit won’t be giving Gaetz any credit for them if they happen.
Motion to Vacate is now what I’m calling my morning poo.
Matt Gaetz is what I call my morning poo.
At least you aren’t calling it Santorum.
According to Gene Belcher, it’s also taking to uncle Ernie
Uhh, WTF?
Right??
Noted MAGA Republican Matt Gaetz, who just ousted Conservative Speaker for daring to work with Democrats, is now demanding…
-
Ban money from lobbyists and political actions committees to congressional candidates
-
Ban members of Congress from trading stocks and from ever becoming lobbyists
-
Term limits for members of Congress
-
Term limits for Supreme Court justices
-
An ethics code for Supreme Court justices
What in the actual fuck?
The irony here is Gaetz and several other junior GOP members have pissed off the GOP seniority. So they are going to shut him down at every turn while he is trying to build steam and reputation for a '26 governor run in Florida.
So with GOP leadership locking him out, he needs to do the cardinal GOP sin of working with Democrats and actually legislate and govern to get his name on anything, and if he somehow gets term limits passed then suddenly a lot of that GOP leadership trying to control him suddenly will be out of office after 2024 and then he can really pander to his GOP base.
Listed out like that, it’s not completely out of left field. The MAGA wing has been advocating for a few of those items on the list. It’s just bizarre that it’s being brought up as a bargaining chip /now/. You know - after obliterating the last R that worked with Dems. Like…what…?
Populism over party has a few positives. These are the sort of things Trump advocated for in his campaign that got him so much support on the right and from people who traditionally we’re “fed up” with politics in America.
he’s running the populist playbook.
Ah, yea that makes sense. It doesn’t seem inconsistent if I think about it that way.
His biggest rivals in the house right now are senior GOP members, not Dems. So if he can use the Dems to force his rivals out of office… well it just looks good for him.
He rapes, but he saves.
But he rapes more than he saves
-
Good and necessary, doable. But it might get struck down since the courts seem to think money = the most important form of protected speech.
-
Good, necessary, and doable.
-
I don’t personally think this is actually a good thing, but that’s debatable. However, it requires a Constitutional amendment to do, not just legislation.
-
Requires a Constitutional amendment to do, not just legislation.
-
Good, necessary, but the Supreme Court is very likely to just ignore it, rule Congress doesn’t have the power, etc
-
If he knows he’s toast with the GOP & is defecting, we don’t want him.
Hes not defecting hes just taking advantage of the chaos. If he can term limits put through then suddenly about half or more of thr GOP in the house are not eligible to run in 2024 and he suddenly gets to be in a position of seniority and will use that freedom to prep for a 2026 Florida Governor election
It’s almost like these maga goofballs are starting to realize most of the corruption in Washington is in their own party. Although most of the stuff on his list is pretty equally distributed between the 2 parties. It’s all universal corruption. It’s actually kind of cool that people in the 2 parties who hate each other are starting to realize they’re both complaining about a lot of the same things. It’s pretty bizarre, too.
-
It sounds like they are more likely to support the motion-to-vacate Gaetz from Congress by expelling him at this point.
Would he support raising the age of consent in Florida?
I’m not sure he knows that even exists
Term limits would just add more power to lobbyists
The plan would seek to enact term limits for Congress members and Supreme Court judges, ban congressional stock trading, create a judicial code of ethics for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices, and prohibit candidates running for federal office from accepting donations from lobbyists or political action committees.
You can only do that by constitutional amendment.
I’m not familiar with a constitutional ban on term limits, and the idea has been floated by people at fairly high levels. Where do you think the restriction is, and do you think any limits could apply to new justices even if the currents are grandfathered in?
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Unlike for President, Senators, and Representatives, no term is given for Federal Judges, which includes the Supreme Court Justices. They “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” Once a Federal Judge, always a Federal Judge.
Article 3, Section 2:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Because judicial review is inferred (not stated) in the Constitution, and because Congress has explicit permission to regulate the judiciary (including the Supreme Court), Congress can effectively do what they want.
This means that Congress can put a clause stating “this law is not subject to judicial review” and there is literally nothing SCOTUS can do about it. It’s a check on SCOTUS. Congress has full power over judicial review.
Congress has tried exercising this clause in the past (to force judicial review to require a 2/3 majority of justices), but it’s always died in the Senate.
That can limit their appellate jurisdiction. Congress can’t restrict the court’s original jurisdiction. A state could sue the federal government over this and as a case where a state is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
But what’s the definition of “Office” in this context? The Office of the President, for example, is defined as a span of four years. President is the title and Office includes both title and time, as do many other political positions.
So what I’m saying is that there’s nothing there that says Congress cannot pass a law saying the Office of a Supreme Court Justice is defined as holding the position for six years.
Because the Constitution specifies term lengths for President, Senators, and Representatives, it is clear that the authors knew when those things needed to be specified. The absence of specifying a term length for Justices means that it is a life term; if the authors had intended there to be a term measured in years, one would have been mentioned.
While I am not a lawyer, I have read enough about intepreting the Constitution to know that that is the very longstanding way to interpret this, and that it is pretty universally accepted.
For the record, I’m playing advocatus diaboli here. I agree that your interpretation is the traditional one.
That said, it has not been challenged, as far as I know, and attributions of original intent (and by now even the application of previous rulings) are the subject of legal argumentation and opinion. My point was that the Constitution does not explicitly set a temporal component to the term of a federal justice, and it does not explicitly forbid one. This it would not take a constitutional amendment to set a term limit, but rather a finding that the law did not violate the constitution (which again would come down to an interpretation since it’s not explicitly set).
