“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 →

[–]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.