• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Six years is too short a term. I think you want a longer term length, because you want change to happen, just not all at once. The real problem with the SCOTUS is that it’s all up to chance when a spot opens up, and since appointments are currently lifetime appointments if you get a judge on the court who is in their 40’s they could serve 40+ years. Republicans were able to engineer a Majority on the Court, in spite of only holding the Presidency for six years since 2008.

    If we had term limits, though, then SCOTUS seats would come up for appointment regularly. The impact of filling one sudden vacancy isnt as great if each President was guaranteed to be able to nominate a few every term.

    If the Court stays at 9, I would be in favor of 18 year terms. Or, we could increase to 13, and make the terms 13 years. Both scenarios with strict one-term limits. This makes it so a one-term President can’t nominate enough judges to totally remake a court, and if would take about a decade for the Court to really turn over to the point that it might make different rulings.

    • panthera_@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The problem with 18- and 13-year terms is that a bad justice would remain a long time. In my proposal, a justice can continue serving beyond 6 years if presidents keep selecting him and the Senate continues to confirm him.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        With 6-year terms an unpopular President could appoint a majority in the period of their first term, then cancel elections with their backing.

        • panthera_@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          That scenario would involve Congress and his nominated justices going along. Longer term limits would mean a bad justice staying for a long time.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Because we’ve never had a case where the most-unpopular President in history was able to rush judicial nominees through the Senate and stack the Court with political hacks who have been credibly accused of sexual assault and drunkenness. The Senate has totally saved us from that.

            If we had 18-year terms, we’d have 4 Obama appointees, 2 Biden, and 3 Trump right now. So it would still be 6-3, but the other direction, and it would represent the medium-long term political viewpoint of the American people, not the newest short-term reactionary position that a 6-year term would provide.

            • panthera_@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              52 minutes ago

              18-year terms is a good idea. I just feel uneasy about a bad justice serving that long. Mathematicians should be given the problem of coming up with the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority. They would be allowed to change the number of justices.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            That scenario would involve Congress and his nominated justices going along.

            Ah, and as we’ve all seen that could never happen… 🙄