Agreed. Now talk about congressional term limits
Term limits for congress first.
Do you really find the ordering important?
I gotta control the conversation somehow.
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?”
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That’s just the type of argument I’d expect from someone with a username like NoSuchNarwhal.
lol. negative post and comment on their empty profile. but only been here 3days. they need to go back to reddit and twitter
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.
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.
You could just say a tie kicks it back down to a lower court.
Coulda used this energy 3 years ago Nancy, just sayin’
She’s been working up her stamina.
Not that it matters, the democrats don’t actually have a senate majority except in name.
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.
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 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about maximum terms for Congress?
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.
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.
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.
This is nonsense; corruption takes time. New members will be more resistant to lobbying, not less.
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.
Yes, but there is less than would be otherwise. Or are you suggest lifetime president would be less corrupt?
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?
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.
So let’s get rid of every term limit then?
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.
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.
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.
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
Religious Conservatives started grooming judges back in the 80s in order to force their will on the American people.
I’m tired of religous conservatives shoving their lifestyle down everyone’s throats.
We all are, but they have caused so much damage to their brand the numbers of religious Americans are plummeting.
Expand the court!
How many new seats? Would you be okay if Republicans expanded when they are in power?
They essentially did just that by denying Dems the ability to put forward someone when repubs controlled the senate. I’m not sure expanding the court is the right move but Dems can’t keep getting absolutely rolled by repubs who refuse to play by the rules or established norms
