this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023

204 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2631 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

204

Pelosi says there ‘certainly should be term limits’ for Supreme Court justices, leaves door open for expansion (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by YoBuckStopsHere to c/politics

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dhork 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 2 points 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.

[+] blackconservative 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] halcyoncmdr 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The number of judges has been changed by Congress quite a few times for various reasons.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.

The best justification I've seen for a specific number that's not pulled out of thin air is to set the number the same as the number of federal appellate courts, currently 12, with each Justice essentially overseeing an appellate circuit. This is something they already do, but it is no longer a 1:1 ratio with only 9 Justices.

[–] mkwt 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like 12 would be undesirable because of ties. Perhaps 12 associates plus 1 chief justice, for 13 total?

I'm aware that even with an odd number you can still reach ties when a justice recuses, or when the court is temporarily lacking its full complement.

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could just say a tie kicks it back down to a lower court.

[–] mkwt 2 points 1 year ago

That's exactly what the actual policy on ties is. Last decision from the lower court stands, but does not set a precedent.

No matter how many justices you set up on the court, you have to have a policy on ties. But I think with an odd number you do a lot to reduce the frequency of tied decisions.

[–] SuperSoftAbby 1 points 1 year ago

lol. negative post and comment on their empty profile. but only been here 3days. they need to go back to reddit and twitter

[–] BioDriver 22 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Now talk about congressional term limits

[–] Arbiter 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Term limits for congress first.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really find the ordering important?

[–] Arbiter 5 points 1 year ago

I gotta control the conversation somehow.

[–] UltraMagnus0001 3 points 1 year ago

Did feinstein leave yet?

[–] utopianfiat 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coulda used this energy 3 years ago Nancy, just sayin'

[–] overzeetop 4 points 1 year ago

She’s been working up her stamina.

Not that it matters, the democrats don’t actually have a senate majority except in name.

[–] DoctorTYVM 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Religious Conservatives started grooming judges back in the 80s in order to force their will on the American people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm tired of religous conservatives shoving their lifestyle down everyone's throats.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 2 points 1 year ago

We all are, but they have caused so much damage to their brand the numbers of religious Americans are plummeting.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How about maximum terms for Congress?

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -2 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is nonsense; corruption takes time. New members will be more resistant to lobbying, not less.

[–] blackbelt352 2 points 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 1 points 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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So let's get rid of every term limit then?

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 0 points 1 year ago

I do believe we need checks on the Supreme Court and whether that be a term limit or a Presidential review every four years, off cycle of the Presidential election, either works.

Term limits work well for unelected positions. Judges are a perfect example of that.

[–] rhacer -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 5 points 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 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[–] onionbaggage 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like the idea of a new justice added every two years. The most recent 9 are the ones that matter then everyone else takes like a retired/senior standby position.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 3 points 1 year ago

I'm a fan of a Presidential review every four years off cycle of the Presidential election. A Presidential review would allow a President to replace a Supreme Court justice if justified (ethics, crimes, etc).

[–] raltodd 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Expand the court!

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many new seats? Would you be okay if Republicans expanded when they are in power?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 0 points 1 year ago

Democrats haven't focused on the Supreme Court for decades has been an issue.