“We should move toward 18-year terms for Supreme Court Justices instead of lifetime appointments. At this point both parties should be open to it. It’s a more modern and rational approach that reduces uncertainty on both tenure and timing of replacement.”

submitted by Orangutan from (twitter.com)

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't want to include Yang's name behind the quote, huh?

[–]ThePlague 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Soooo...a circus every 2 years instead of every 3 on average?

[–]nolivesmatter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That would defeat the purpose

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

well what is the purpose, to let justices, who are pretty important, do whatever they want and not face the people if they make wrong, corrupt choices?

[–]PRSanon 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They already don't face any consequences for poor, politicized decisions, that result in legislating from the bench. That needs to change, and this proposed solution doesn't fix anything.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

that is why this person suggested term limits. 18 years too, hardly a short period that is unfair

[–]PRSanon 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Politicians are hardly held accountable when they look for reelection. It does replace them faster if you don't like them.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's far from perfect but with politicians, some such as president have term limits, and at least they have to run for reelection, imagine life appointments. That is the same thing as a king, and must be abolished.

[–]TruthTeller 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would also be a much "more modern and rational approach" to stop living by whatever was meant in the Second Amendment and pass some sensible gun laws like many other civilized countries. But that's not how it works, does it?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Q: Why is there a limit of only 9 judges?

A: Controlled centralized power.

Q: Why not have 900 judges, 2 courts in each state, ruling on the big issues for the nation? This open the (intentionally) stopped up cases to bring justice to the people.

A: It's not controlled centralized power. Too many judges is too hard to control/bribe/extort/blackmail. Too many targets for the public to rise up against with their own "justice", should it ever get to that.

Also, 18 years still seems waaaaay too long. A decade at most, preferably 8 so that it's synced up to the president who appointed them, limiting their direct and indirect influence to 16 years max.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting idea... although I can think of a downside as far as the "replacement" issue is concerned. I could see a tendency to postpone putting cases through court if it is known that someone's term is ending soon.

[–]GaiusHelenMohiam 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

New justices keep getting younger. That is the main reason I would support this. I suggest a 22 year term. But if more than one vacancy happens in a two year term of Congress, then the subsequent judges would have a 19 year term. Also, count the time from when the vacancy happens, rather than when they are confirmed.