H.R. 8424: Supreme Court Term Limits & Regular Appointments Act, Taking Aim at SCOTUS


Judges Court Gavel Law Legal
H.R. 8424: Supreme Court Term Limits & Regular Appointments Act, Taking Aim at SCOTUS

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- As the crack of freedom rings out across the nation in the wake of our election for President of the United States, all kinds of bills are popping up for the next legislative session.

It’s clear that the people have spoken and Joe Biden is our president-elect!!… I jest, as we are wading into some of the muddiest waters in election history of most everyone’s lifetimes.

The crack of freedom is not only undermined by the continual speculation on what the actual results are but that this is or was, in fact, a very close race. What may come from Trump’s challenges to the election results remains to be seen.  However, we need to be posed and positioned for an anti-freedom Biden Presidency.

The country is fairly split, and anti-freedom lawmakers should not be clicking their heels saying “the people have spoken” and thus introduce laws that would limit any rights of the people, specifically the 2nd Amendment.

More and more people are embracing firearm ownership and many of them may have voted for Biden.

It seems across the nation that lawmakers are emboldened by a Biden win, and all kinds of new legislation have been introduced.  With these bills being proposed on the state and national level, of course, freedom limiting measures are being brought up.  Beyond the legislative, there are murmurs that Biden’s team has already met with the head of the ATF with plans to do what?  Speculation says the banning of arm-braces, a concern that was uncovered in a recent NJ state OPRA request shows the anti-gun group Moms Demand Action in correspondence with New Jersey policymakers (see OPRA W160618 Moms Demand Action Phil Murphy New Jersey 6-25-2020).  Further, the regulation of 80% lowers, to make “ghost guns” unavailable might be on the menu.  Rumors are flying.

What a Biden presidency would mean to the 2nd Amendment and what gets done executively remains to be seen, but we should take his word at it that he’s no friend to lawful gun ownership.  The ATF has been running out of their lane as it is, and what other damage they’re going to do is up in the air.  This is further compounded by legislation introduced to increase the scope of the ATF’s abilities to regulate.

Would a Biden presidency mean the United States entering back into the UN Small Arms Treaty (a scary proposition)?

One thing that continues to be clear, is the progressive agenda and its assaults on the system when America does not go their way.  The progressive agenda does not try to work within the rules like Trump does with his vote count challenge that is within the rules. No, instead, they try to change them to favor one agenda.

Enter H.R. 8424: Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2020

Scene in HR 8424, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2020, introduced September 29, 2020.  Interestingly enough, this bill did not pop up in the wake of this year’s election, as many have, but only a scant 11 days after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Not only is the introduction of this legislation telling because it’s a clear way to try and change the goal post concerning Supreme Court Justices, but it also highlights how disgusting and distasteful some could be by bringing such a bill up not even a full fortnight after RBG’s passing.

The bill proposes that Supreme Court Justices only serve 18-year terms and that every two years the president will get a chance to appoint two new justices.  The current court would be exempt from these provisions, so this is clearly a long game that is being played.  On a personal level, I’m not sure how I feel about the idea of justices having term limits, sure, this could be a good thing, potentially a bad thing.

I think before turning their sights on the courts, congress should be discussing instituting term limits for themselves, prior to projecting on another branch of the government.  A little housekeeping perhaps?

The troubling part of the proposed bill is not so much the 18-year terms, and again, arguments can be made either way on that.  But rather, the more troubling thing is the bill is a direct retaliation and response to the Garland appointment that did not see the light of day, and how Trump was able to fill that seat.  The stonewalling of Garland can be talked about for years to come, and the more progressive-leaning individuals, as they lick their wounds on that loss, had a new nightmare come to fruition, the death of RBG right before the election.

In all rights, RBG should have retired under Obama’s watch if she was particularly worried about securing her seat with a justice that would support policies similar to her own (legislating from the bench).  She rolled the dice and lost. Regardless, the Senate followed the rules, as they did during the Garland appointment, it’s just the rules that did not suit progressives.

The dangerous provision of HR 8424 is this:

If the Senate does not exercise its advice and consent authority with respect to a President’s nominee to the Supreme Court within 120 days after the nomination, the Senate shall be deemed to have waived its advice and consent authority with respect to such nominee, and the nominee shall be seated as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

This is clearly an agenda to move the goal post on the selection of Supreme Court Justices when there is an upcoming election.  Let’s change the rules to suit our needs so this never happens again.  When the shoe is on the other foot, conservatives do what they usually do, pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and carry on.

In a United States that did not have judges and justices trying to legislate from the bench, maybe this would not be a bad thing?  I don’t know.  But what I do know is that justices and judges are legislating from the bench all the time, not looking into the history, text, and tradition of the Constitution, rather leaning on “feelings.”  We cannot continue to have a country that has the executive branch or judicial branch create laws.  We must maintain a system to protect what little is left of this ideal.  That means constitutionalists in the courts.  Strong and originalist judges and justices, at this juncture, are the only stop-gap the US has to safeguard against executive overreach and malfeasance of the law in lower courts.

I don’t think HR 8424 will make it anywhere, as most bills don’t.  However, we’d be remiss to not at least point out what is in the playbook.  About those term limits that Donald Trump wants/ed in a second term?

Limits That Donald Trump Wanted In A Second Term
Term Limits in a Donald Trump Second Term

Maybe we should be writing our legislators to impose limits on how long members of Congress can stay in office.

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

John Petrolino
John Petrolino
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The only thing in this world more despicable than the rioting, thieving, traitorous, baby-murdering demcrook libtards are all the apathetic working class dumbf***s who failed to vote.


Buster, Democrats/Socialists/Communists are the worst. I agree that people who didn’t vote should have. The bad people who fly under the radar are the people holding offices in the Republican Party (State Chairpersons and Ronna McDaniel (Mitt’s niece) that knew the actions of the BATFE and Trump’s comments on February 28, 2018 were likely going to cost him the election. They could have counseled him to: Create the 2nd Amendment coalition (like he promised he would); Not order the BATFE to redefine the meaning of words; Walk back the comments he made on 2/28/18; Terminate Regina Lombardo when she took… Read more »



uncle dudley

Supreme court justices are not supposed to be partisan in their beliefs and judgements but to follow the laws that originated with the founders writing of the constitution and bill of rights, however it seems somewhere down the road all the appointments turned into pure party politics. Term limits should apply to senators and representatives in the house but getting them to vote and pass such an idea is like having the fox guard the chicken coop, won’t happen. The elected officials and appointed judges have forgotten they are in their jobs to help the American people survive in a… Read more »


@Irontiger – congress has term limits for in form of elections. Unfortunately members have been able to shape the narrative and most of the rest of us are too short sighted to replace them often enough.


When Grand Wizard, Joe Biden said ‘they going to put ya’ll back in chains, he was projecting the despicable future the party of baby killers has for the former United States of America. I will not comply to any unconstitutional edicks issued by a unelected figure head for the NWO.


A patently unconstitutional bill. Another example of Democrats treating the 2nd Amendment as a dog treats a fire hydrant.


Two Term, term limits MUST BE APPLIED to Congress. An ability for American Citizens to EVALUATE a Congressman/woman MUST be implemented. When a Congressman/woman is found to be enacting “policies, bills, laws” that go AGAINST our American Constitution, they MUST BE LEGALLY REMOVED — POST HASTE!!!!!

Ryben Flynn

A Law cannot put term limits on the SCOTUS. The Constitution would have to be amended. Shows how stupid Democrats are. “Article III, Section 1, says: “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.” Term limit? No. Demoted to a lower Court? No. The only thing Congress can do is change the number of Justices which is established by Law. The Justices may retire if they so choose. Yet there are… Read more »

Last edited 3 years ago by Ryben Flynn

Term limits? Let’s start with congress and the senate.


If this year proves anything it”s that TERM LIMITS are an absolute Imperative !!


The democrat party has moved itself from its roots in the United States of America to be transplanted into the one world order system. A system found and determined to destroy the freedom of all people on planet earth. A system written about 2700 years ago and based in the depths of the satanic agenda. Those who are attracted to that system are so attracted because of greed and a lust for power. They care nothing for any other person unless they can use that person for obtaining more power. It is a system of pure evil and the consequences… Read more »


Am I just an old skeptic or did anyone else notice that DemoCraps were not yelling about term limits for SCOTUS when the court had a Leftist leaning


You hint at potential trouble from the ATF but didn’t elaborate much. I think it is safe to assume the worse. The agency is run by people that violate their oath of office and the constitution, in thought and indeed.

Whether Trump remains president or not, he could do America a big favor and disband ATF altogether and move legitimate, essential functions to a department at FBI with certain constitutionally affirming mandates.

He could also ask for special investigators to root out anti-constitutional actors, plans or agendas within this agency.


I favor term limits for every elective office. I do favor limits for SCOTUS members, too. 18 24 years is long enough. You don’t want rapid change because it would upset the apple cart continuously.


The whole idea of circulating supreme court judges is more than dangerous and unconstitutional, it’s a take over move ,by dems to KEEP free reign over the United States forever. This CANNOT happen!

uncle dudley

The biggest enemy gun owners face is the national news media and big tech, they control the narrative in the country that the American people get bombarded with every day and they have proven over the past four years that they are a wing of the democrat party.
We should be afraid that the second amendment will be under fire by these companies by using the first amendment against us.


A large part of the tech industry issue could have been solved in 2017, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the president was a Republican. The Tech companies can either have: 1) Immunity from liable & slander (“it’s just a platform”); or 2) They can exercise editorial control. The Republicans allowed them to have both.

Anyone else think the Democrats, Establishment Republicans, the media, and Wayne learned a long time ago how to get along and prosper?

Capn Dad

I never hear these writers suggest what we all know will need to happen in the event of a communist takeover of the US. Its always give us more money or go vote or go write/call your elected officials all of which we all know doesn’t work. The recent elections prove it doesn’t work. You want to keep your freedoms? Its going to be painful folks and yeah you’re gonna bleed. Get use to the idea.

Dave in Fairfax

Capn Dad,

Perhaps they don’t feel like being charged with treason and expect you to draw your own conclusions.