“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

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.