• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with term limits for the Court is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. And in the current environment it would be impossible to get an amendment through. One party operates on a political platform of spite, and now that Nancy Pelosi has come out in favor of it there is zero chance of an amendment getting enough support to happen.

    Expansion is a possibility, though, because it’s well established that the size of the Court is set by Congress. If Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency, it may be worth nuking the Filibuster for. Only after expanding the the Court do you go to Republicans and say “Do you want to work with us on an amendment for term limits for Justices, or do you want Joe Biden to nominate 4 judges to life terms all at once?”

    • slinky317@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      AFAIK, the Constitution does not state that Supreme Court Justices have life terms. It is vague and has been interpreted to maybe mean life terms but it doesn’t explicitly say that.

    • blackconservative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Expansion is dumb. Then everytime one party is in control and the supreme court is leaning the other way they will expand it. Sooner or later everyone will be a supreme court justice.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The number of judges has been changed by Congress quite a few times for various reasons.

        The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.

        The best justification I’ve seen for a specific number that’s not pulled out of thin air is to set the number the same as the number of federal appellate courts, currently 12, with each Justice essentially overseeing an appellate circuit. This is something they already do, but it is no longer a 1:1 ratio with only 9 Justices.

        • mkwt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seems like 12 would be undesirable because of ties. Perhaps 12 associates plus 1 chief justice, for 13 total?

          I’m aware that even with an odd number you can still reach ties when a justice recuses, or when the court is temporarily lacking its full complement.

            • mkwt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s exactly what the actual policy on ties is. Last decision from the lower court stands, but does not set a precedent.

              No matter how many justices you set up on the court, you have to have a policy on ties. But I think with an odd number you do a lot to reduce the frequency of tied decisions.

      • SuperSoftAbby@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        lol. negative post and comment on their empty profile. but only been here 3days. they need to go back to reddit and twitter

    • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      She’s been working up her stamina.

      Not that it matters, the democrats don’t actually have a senate majority except in name.

  • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be great, but it’s only part of the story. Judicial appointments should not be the poltical show that they are. It’s too late to turn that ship around easily, and impossible without both sides of the aisle agreeing to it.

    But becoming a judge should not be poltical at all. As long as they are it’s a problem that won’t be solved with just term limits

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religious Conservatives started grooming judges back in the 80s in order to force their will on the American people.

      • keeb420@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m tired of religous conservatives shoving their lifestyle down everyone’s throats.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We all are, but they have caused so much damage to their brand the numbers of religious Americans are plummeting.

  • keeb420@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    im less worried about age and more worried about blatant corruption of the court. age can be a problem but corruption can happen to any of them.

    • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Luckily we have a solid system in place for impeachment and removal of corrupt justices and it only requires a faithful and honest congress to enact.

      Bahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely not, I believe term limits give more power to lobby groups. If voters every two to six years feel their Congressional representation is doing well why should they be punished by term limits. I’d rather we open the door to Congressional Recalls for House and Senate members.

      • Tb0n3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if they’re fine voting in a dementia sufferer because they recognize her name on the ballot? That’s the biggest problem currently is uninformed voters just keep voting the same people in. Not because they like what they’re doing but because they recognize the name.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The voters choose their representative, but the parties put who is on the ticket. I’m not a fan of Bobert but her district voted her into office twice. That’s on them. If they vote in Mickey Mouse then they live with that choice.

      • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Incumbents have huge advantages naturally (voter recognition, experience to point to, pork projects passed, the machine behind them, etc, etc. so term limits are much more likely to result in the will of the people being heard.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is nonsense; corruption takes time. New members will be more resistant to lobbying, not less.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The presidency has had almost a century of term limits. That has not actually stopped the centralization of power to the office of the presidency.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Writing legislation is a skill developed over time. It’s like saying a doctor needs term limits, do you want a new doctor or one with years of experience?

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do believe we need checks on the Supreme Court and whether that be a term limit or a Presidential review every four years, off cycle of the Presidential election, either works.

          Term limits work well for unelected positions. Judges are a perfect example of that.

    • rhacer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have the best team limits available. They are two years for Congress and six years for the Senate.

      Those who vote simply need to make those limits happen. Often they choose not to do so.

  • onionbaggage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like the idea of a new justice added every two years. The most recent 9 are the ones that matter then everyone else takes like a retired/senior standby position.