I appreciate the sentiment, but as long as the Courts are in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of said bill and article 3, section 1 is available for them to interpret as meaning lifetime appointments, you’re pretty much going to have to pass a constitutional amendment make this actually happen.
ioncloud9 on
You are better off changing the format of the court keeping the lifetime appointments to the federal bench but rotating them through a term on the Supreme Court and then going back to the federal bench.
Virbillion on
democracy can not exist under an anointed aristrocracy.
ElsaVoss on
Terms limits for SCOTUS justices is one of the only sane reforms if you actually care about democracy and accountability. Right now, one guy appointed at 45 can swing U.S. law for 40+ years that’s absurdly undemocratic and invites political gaming for decades. The new H.R. 1074 bill would cap terms at 18 years, staggered so every president gets regular appointments instead of frenzied battles over every vacancy. It’s not a cure-all, but it would cut down on confirmation wars and make the Court more reflective of society overtime.
iyamwhatiyam8000 on
High Court of Australia justices have a mandatory retirement age of 72.
Ok-Employee383 on
It should also investigate how Leonard Leo is so influential in lining up new candidates.
Ecthelion2187 on
Stupid messaging bill designed to go nowhere.
Anyone who is serious will expand the court. A lot. And restructure it (rotating panels given randomly assigned cases, strict rules around the shadow docket, etc.)
cbjunior on
I would suggest a term nine years, each justice replaced at the rate of one per year. Chief Justice would the one in their ninth year. Somebody else suggested rotating them from the federal bench. That seems like a good idea as I understand there is no prerequisite requiring a candidate to have previous experience as a judge or even be a lawyer.
Theestubby on
That’s not passing lmao
thoptergifts on
The Supreme Court is an unelected judicial branch that also has many executive and legislative power thanks our moron founding ‘fathers’
jankyt on
At least age limits. Can’t have geriatrics deciding how childbearing women can manage their health when they are generations apart.
Destind99 on
nice idea but unless there’s a super majority who back it, it’s not going anywhere
12 Comments
I appreciate the sentiment, but as long as the Courts are in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of said bill and article 3, section 1 is available for them to interpret as meaning lifetime appointments, you’re pretty much going to have to pass a constitutional amendment make this actually happen.
You are better off changing the format of the court keeping the lifetime appointments to the federal bench but rotating them through a term on the Supreme Court and then going back to the federal bench.
democracy can not exist under an anointed aristrocracy.
Terms limits for SCOTUS justices is one of the only sane reforms if you actually care about democracy and accountability. Right now, one guy appointed at 45 can swing U.S. law for 40+ years that’s absurdly undemocratic and invites political gaming for decades. The new H.R. 1074 bill would cap terms at 18 years, staggered so every president gets regular appointments instead of frenzied battles over every vacancy. It’s not a cure-all, but it would cut down on confirmation wars and make the Court more reflective of society overtime.
High Court of Australia justices have a mandatory retirement age of 72.
It should also investigate how Leonard Leo is so influential in lining up new candidates.
Stupid messaging bill designed to go nowhere.
Anyone who is serious will expand the court. A lot. And restructure it (rotating panels given randomly assigned cases, strict rules around the shadow docket, etc.)
I would suggest a term nine years, each justice replaced at the rate of one per year. Chief Justice would the one in their ninth year. Somebody else suggested rotating them from the federal bench. That seems like a good idea as I understand there is no prerequisite requiring a candidate to have previous experience as a judge or even be a lawyer.
That’s not passing lmao
The Supreme Court is an unelected judicial branch that also has many executive and legislative power thanks our moron founding ‘fathers’
At least age limits. Can’t have geriatrics deciding how childbearing women can manage their health when they are generations apart.
nice idea but unless there’s a super majority who back it, it’s not going anywhere