• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

  • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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

  • keeb420@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        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
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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?

    • rhacer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • lps2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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