Are you in favor of Supreme Court term limits?

[msc545]

[WindAtMyBack]

Yes. I'm for term limits for all appointed positions. But I think the limits should be long enough that we don't "oscillate". With short limits you could constantly switch from one extreme to the other. With longer terms, you would tend to have a mix who oppose each other and keep things a little less extreme.

"Balance of power" is often used to refer to different branches of government. But it can also mean a balance of ideologies. Short limits can upset that balance.

When it comes to the US Supreme Court, I have not read why the founders did that. Maybe one day I'll look into it, but it's not high on the list.

[AviatorTom]

It makes sense to have term limits on SCOTUS, POTUS, Senate and House.

Back when the Constutution was written, average lifespan was much shorter than it is today, so a lifelong term was typically 10-15 years. Now it's 30-40 years. Pelosi has been a Congresswoman for 37 years. Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for 33 years. The Founding Fathers never envisioned lifelong terms thst long.

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for MHO

[Agape93]

Nope. I'm in favor of their abolishment. If you're not for the people, you need to go

[msc545]

Well yes, ok, but if you abolish the Court, who then makes the final decisions?

[Agape93]

That court only deals in constitutional questions, not legal ones. But regardless as i said if you aren't for the people and your record shows it, you need to go. So if they can prove what they decide is what the majority wants, then they can stay.

[msc545]

So you want the majority to decide?

[Agape93]

Yeap. I sure as shit won't accept rule by a minority of people.

[msc545]

Even if the minority is right and the majority is wrong?

[Agape93]

Whats right for some isn't right for all and that goes both ways.

If a majority wanted free Healthcare, thats good. If a majority wanted to crucify every man, that's bad. Reverse is also true. But as it stands, liberals and conservatives are both minority groups who's values infringe on our basic rights and that's unacceptable

[msc545]

The average IQ is 100 with most between 85-115. Not particularly intelligent or thoughtful - is that ok?

[Agape93]

Ok for what?

[msc545]

Making important decisions?

[Agape93]

Doesn't much matter. You can be a genius or retarded and make your own important decisions. But nobody should be making life impacting choices for other people unless it's to end sexual predators or keep you and loved ones safe.

[Agape93]

Like would you want me ever having legal power over you? Of course not. Like how I wouldn't want you to have it over me.

[WhiteSteve]

Absolutely. The fuck do we have “for life” appointments for? There is NO WAY that could go poorly….

[msc545]

Well yes, it works SO WELL now.

[WhiteSteve]

Been stuck seeing Clarence Thomas’ stupid ass since like 7th grade lmao

[msc545]

yes... ugh.

[MisterWack]

I’m in favor of term limits for every job since absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Also The Founding Fathers didn’t think SCOTUS would ever be corrupt too far to the left or too far to the right due to the fact that they’d be putting the eyes of the law over their personal convictions along with them not being a political body allowing them to rule on the principle of the law & US Constitution NOT for personal benefit…. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone else saw Samuel Alito & Clarence Thomas they would’ve changed a few things around here….

[Syntosi]

Irrelevant. The problem with the supreme court is that they are appointed by the president which makes them part of political games. Changing how often you shuffle up the game does not change the fundamental fact of it being a game.

[msc545]

@Syntosi term limits, depending on the length, might be a partial solution to this underlying important problem you mentioned and stated well. Any ideas on how to better remedy it?

[Syntosi]

The way I see term limits usually is that it allows corrupt groups to easily cycle through an endless parade of puppets, since there is never a lack of people without morals, while at the same time limit the good that the rare good people can do by working their way up. That said I could see there being an age limit because you can make an argument for reduced cognitive abilities and just basic health and stamina to do their jobs at some point.

As for how to better resolve this? I think the means of appointing supreme court judges should be from within the judicial branch itself. The idea being that you have 3 separate branches of government, being the executive AKA president, the legislative AKA the house and senate and lastly the judicial which is headed by the supreme court.

The presidency which is from one branch should not be able to elect the head of another branch. That much is obvious. Having judges be promoted from within the judicial branch itself is not a surefire way of avoiding corruption but it makes it much harder and/or take much longer.

[msc545]

Good ideas, thanks!

[DryGermanGuy]

I like the German example for our highest court: Judges get one 12 year term and they have to retire from that bench at age 68.

[exitseven]

No, It adds a little randomness into the government. If somebody dies the President gets to appoint a Supreme court justice that can have a lasting effect on the highest court in the land.

Trump got lucky during his administration and maybe he will get another pick this time.

[goaded]

I'm more in favour of a minimum 60 votes in the Senate for confirmation (as was the case before McConnell broke the country) and enforceable ethics rules, maybe policed by panels of randomly selected federal judges.

Justice RBG was a good judge of everything apart from when to call it quits. She was confirmed by a 97-0 vote, iirc.

Oh, better! How about a term limit of one year for each vote in your margin of victory?

[Anonymous]

If you were interested in an accountable supreme court they would need to be impeached by someone who actually has an interest in their limits rather than those who share the vested interest in ignoring it.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. 18 years for SCOTUS, house n Senate.

Every POTUS gets 2 SCOTUS picks in years 1 & 3 of term once staggered order is set for transition

AND ALL THOSE MUTHAFUCKAS ARE OUT AT 70 - REauth this law every 10 years for review.

[ProbablyClueless]

I am... maybe a 3 administration limit? You're pretty much guaranteed to serve under both parties' leadership if you serve under 3 administrations.

[DtMe89]

Why is the supreme court the only court that doesn't have limits. That's all I want to know

[Anonymous]

Yes, we have term limit for president, and need term limits for supreme court, I will go even farther and say we need term limits for congress also.

[KrakenAttackin]

The Constitution spells out the life time position of Justices.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes. and don't they barely even do anything but read and decide to not see the case?

[OddBeMe]

Yes. In fact, perhaps even elections for 1 whole branch of the government

[beefcakebradybatson]

Eighty. (Here,75 is the age jurists must retire.)

[Stevepro68]

Term limits no. Age limits yes.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

100%

[Pterodon]

Actually I am in favor but for how long?

[msc545]

Maybe 4 or 5 years at most?

[Pterodon]

Say eight. A presidential two term

[msc545]

That sort of seems like a lot but the two-term part is persuasive.

[Anonymous]

Favour of all political position limits.

[Circushowcowboy]

Yes I am