r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • Aug 29 '26
PoliticalTea đłď¸ No one should have a lifetime appointment.
599
u/ShanGus7 Aug 29 '26
If it happens, should be shorter.
218
u/Apoordm Aug 29 '26
Eighteen is so every presidential term would get two appointments in a nine justice court.
101
u/Shadowcam Aug 29 '26
They can die in office or strategically retire to benefit their political allies, so that line of thinking won't hold up to reality.
119
u/Dangerous-Half3276 Aug 29 '26
Yeah but the terms are fixed at 18 years. If someone retires in year 15 to benefit the current President, then the person who fills that seat would only serve 3 years.
Thatâs how the Federal Reserve works with 14-year terms.
25
u/brogflender Aug 29 '26
Is that actually in the proposal?
67
u/wandering-monster Aug 29 '26
Yes. The terms are arranged to end in the first and third year of every presidential term (which also accounts for things like impeachments, deaths of the president in office, etc to ensure the successor has a pick as well)Â
A replacement justice serves out the remainder of their term only.Â
At that point it's only random accidents that create an exploitable event.
Most reasonable way I could think to avoid that would be to let each justice keep a list of replacements that they think align with their thinking. The sitting president gets to pick whoever they want off the list: some power to steer things, but not the power to totally flip the seat.
9
u/TheSodernauts Aug 29 '26
Is the person serving out the term eligible to serve a full term after that, should they be chosen to do so?
9
u/wandering-monster Aug 29 '26
I didn't see, but typically in that sort of scheme the answer is either "no" or "only if they served less than half the original term" or some similar fraction.
2
u/xdaemonisx Aug 29 '26
This is how the presidency works. If the VP or whoever becomes president through succession when thereâs less than half the term left, then it doesnât count towards the two term limit. A president can theoretically serve for 10 years.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/JAVIV-4 Aug 29 '26
I'd heard previous proposals that just had prior justices ride circuit and backfill by recency.
16
u/AelixD Aug 29 '26
Thatâs how all of our term based positions work. The term is tied to the position, not the person. If a Senator leaves office, their position is still up for election at the regularly scheduled interval.
The justices each represent one of nine districts. Those districts would be set up on an 18 year rotation staggered every two years.
Death or strategic retirement could only skew the make up of the court temporarily.
12
u/SemichiSam Aug 29 '26
The justices each represent one of nine districts.
They did when the current number of justices was set. Now they represent 13 districts. Roberts has three, Alito and Kavanaugh each have two. By the logic originally used to set the number of justices at nine, there should now be thirteen.
5
u/AelixD Aug 29 '26
K. I didnât look into it. The principle still stands. They are filling specific seats. The seats would be set to specific terms, not the people filling them.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ScottRiqui Aug 29 '26
Thereâs no longer a logical connection between a particular SCOTUS justice and a federal circuit, now that we have the federal circuit courts of appeal.
A justice doesnât ârepresentâ one or more districts - theyâre assigned to one or more districts for administrative stuff like hearing emergency appeals. If a justice retires or dies, their replacement doesnât have to come from any particular district; the justices are all essentially interchangeable.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)5
23
u/ifuckzombies Aug 29 '26
Strategically retire?
26
19
u/Bussamove86 Aug 29 '26
She got it mixed up and strategically died to benefit the opposition.
RBG did a lot of good but refusing to retire out of pride was a major folly.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Minimum-Relief6895 Aug 29 '26
She wanted to be replaced by the first female president.
And yes, it was a MAJOR folly. I capitalized it because you undersold it by not capitalizing it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
3
u/UpbeatDurian7628 Aug 29 '26
Yeah but the retirement thing would be an issue regardless of the term limit. Just send the assholes who have been there for decades out to pasture.
→ More replies (10)2
22
Aug 29 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
→ More replies (6)5
u/Pudddddin Aug 29 '26
That requires that you institute staggered terms. Which isnt in the the 18yr proposal.
Sounds like this is a bit of an unserious proposal then. I mean, we already have staggered elections in the Senate for this reason, why would this have been missed
6
Aug 29 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/Pudddddin Aug 29 '26
That's kind of what I mean
They propose this, some constituents think it's great at face value, but the entire time it was just an unserious proposal to bait the masses
2
u/LowlySlayer Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
It is included in the proposal
The proposal is short and manages to touch on basically all the extremely obvious problems redditors are bringing up.
Edit:That's a link to an old version of the proposal, but as far as I can find in any article discussing the proposal it's the same. I think it's just being reintroduced for political reasons.
→ More replies (19)9
u/Arkmer Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
Then just make that the rule.
âAfter swearing in as the POTUS, you may select one SCOTUS Justice to replace the senior most Justice.â
First win? One Justice.
Second win? Another Justice.
Third win? Straight to jail.We just need some verbiage about what happens if someone retires early for whatever reason.
→ More replies (5)2
u/PhilospohicalZ0mb1e Aug 29 '26
Itâs simple. If someone retires early we grind âem and clone âem and no one is the wiser
→ More replies (3)2
28
u/Kingtez28 Aug 29 '26
12 years and it's completely illegal to accept any gifts or donations from Millionaires or billionaires with. Automatic fireable offense.
17
→ More replies (4)4
10
u/Forb1ddenKnowledge Aug 29 '26
We also need more judges it's ridiculous a small group can basically bend the laws with whatever alternative motives they have.
Hell I wouldn't be against people voting for judges and not the administration and 1 judge per state.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Camper_102 Aug 29 '26
The system is broken and wont be fixed any time soon. Anyone who thinks a combined total of 546 people making laws and doing "the peoples" work isnt a problem, is part of the problem. We need to triple the number of people in the house, leave the senate alone, and then grow the supreme court to 27. This would start to fix our country.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ChickenAndTelephone Aug 29 '26
The Senate is a big part of the problem. North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Alaska and Wyoming combined have five times as much representation and influence in the Senate as California, despite having 1/10th of the population. Since laws need Senate approval, the Senate is so heavily slanted toward empty land and the Senate has the filibuster that requires 2/3rds support to overcome, it basically guarantees almost no laws can actually pass. Since governance still needs to happen, the executive branch has taken more and more power. Change the Senate to actually be representative and it would go a long way toward fixing some of this.
Of course, much like term limits for Supreme Court justices, such a change would require a constitutional amendment, which would in turn require the minority to voluntarily surrender their outsized power over the majority. So, it would take some kind of 1 in a 1,000 year event for Congress and the state legislatures to get the kind of supermajority required to actually fix this stuff.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ConsciousSpirit9427 Aug 29 '26
And forced to retire at 65. I feel thats more important.
7
u/Jimjonesflavor_aid Aug 29 '26
65 is fairly young. I don't have a problem at all with a supreme court justice being in their 60's. You want someone with a ton of experience. Maybe 75 or something. For president too, maybe even more important. No one in office should be in their 80's in my opinion.
5
u/SemichiSam Aug 29 '26
No one in office should be in their 80's in my opinion.
I am 86. I retired from politics at 70. I caught crap from people I thought were friends for leaving when there was still work to do. 70 was my personal decision, but I would accept a cut-off age of 80, with a requirement to pass a cognitive exam after 70.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/CurlOfTheBurl11 Aug 29 '26
65 is fairly young
That's the point. They'd have life enough left that they would have to live with the consequences of their decisions. What the fuck does Chuck Grassley, for example, have to lose by voting repeatedly to make life worse for regular people? Fucker is 92, he'll be long dead before he ever has to suffer the shitty decisions he's made.
20
4
4
u/Viator_Eagle Aug 29 '26
While I see what you are saying, I am surprised that it isn't 20 years (stand amount of time civilian or military personnel needs to get benefits / retire)
6
u/GloomyIndividual3965 Aug 29 '26
The reason they picked 18 was to stagger them out so that each president gets 2 per term.
President 1: picks 1 & 2
President 2: picks 3 & 4
President 3: picks 5 & 6
President 4: picks 7 & 8
President 5: picks 9 and replaces #1.
President 6: replaces 2 & 3
Etc etc...
It guarantees that the court cycles every 18 years. Unless there's a really long stretch of one party controlling the presidency it ensures that we don't get something like the current 6-3 bullshit for 2 decades straight.
2
u/IndependentOffer4343 Aug 29 '26
Unfortunately this bill would be unconstitutional. Article III, Section 1Â states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", which means they serve for life. A better idea, which can be done with only statutory change, is to expand the court, allowing for 1 vacancy every two years, with no limit on the number of justices.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)2
73
Aug 29 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
→ More replies (3)23
u/lauri2 Aug 29 '26
Keep in mind, my american friends, the root problem is not the term limit. The elephant in the room so to speak is the fact that your SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE CORRUPT for fuck's sake. Everyone's just quietly accepted that fact and furthermore even if the term limit was 1 year, what's stopping them from switching one puppet for the next?
Term limit sounds obvious, but it won't fix the underlaying bigger issue.
7
u/Ol_Turd_Fergy Aug 29 '26
Clarence Thomas keeps ignoring to disclose trips and gifts that he gets from his
ownerfriend Harlon Crow without any repercussions. The corruption is brazen at this point.3
u/Infamous-Alps-2251 Aug 30 '26
True, but term limits are a way of stopping corruption so we donât have people who spend most of their lives as justices even once theyâre in diapers
→ More replies (6)3
u/Sennten Aug 30 '26
But the majority of the justices are corrupt BECAUSE of the way the court appointment system is set up. If it was set up the way proposed here they wouldn't be! The most corrupt justices would have been replaced by Obama and Biden.
61
u/CaptCobraChicken Aug 29 '26
12 makes more sense. Tie it with a two term limit for senators and a six term limit for reps.
9
u/know_your_anemone Aug 29 '26
Expand house of reps to a degree where you likely know your rep personally (one for every 30k people)
Then put a limit on consecutive terms. I think there needs to be a limit, but I also donât think voting back in a better rep is a bad thing. 6 term limit, 2 terms off, something like that.→ More replies (19)3
u/Meats10 Aug 29 '26
13 justices, one new every year. Oldest one forced retirement.
2
u/ex0thermist Aug 29 '26
Resulting in 7/13 or more of the court beholden to a president in his last year in office.
→ More replies (13)3
u/Xtra_Veg-90 Aug 29 '26
Set them on a rotation so every two years there's a new justice.
Unfortunately I don't know if this will result in more consistent case law or break the system as people repeatedly appeal in an effort to overturn precedence.
I think we were overdue for a separate constitutional court to specifically consider certain issues separate from a supreme appellate court, like many other countries have.
26
u/esther_lamonte Aug 29 '26
Add lifetime jail sentence if caught taking lavish gifts from lobbyists.
→ More replies (1)14
u/codereign Aug 29 '26
China sentences official to death for taking $325m in bribes
I genuinely think that the level of corruption shown by Roberts and others does more damage to society than serial killers do.
→ More replies (2)
19
u/Katnamedeaster Aug 29 '26
Yup. We've proved the lifetime appointment does nothing to curb partisanship and only creates a longer timeline for corruption.
12 years max.
5
u/PowerfulBar Aug 29 '26
Actually 18 is good IF you stagger it so one justice gets term limited every 2 years. That way presidents are constantly appointing justices. This is the best proposal Iâve seen to reform the Court. Constantly changing bench would hopefully mean the Court would have to be more moderate, find consensus and not just toss away decades of precedent (like Roe v. Wade) simply because they feel like.Â
5
u/YikesTheCat Aug 29 '26
It's not even a new proposal; I believe Rick Santorum, of all people, proposed this years ago.
Of course when Democrats started saying "hey, this might not be a bad idea actually" it suddenly became the most authoritarian malicious thing ever proposed in the history of the Communist Nazi Muslim DemocRAT party and was going to destroy America. Or ... something. Also see Obamacare copying Romneycare. etc. etc.
2
u/PowerfulBar Aug 30 '26
Santorum? LolâŚmaybe it was a reform to deal with âactivistâ judges the GOP used to rail against.
Iâm not 100% sure but the idea might have first been proposed by a law professor. IIRC the professor or whomever, proposed. IIRC the idea was to line up the justices getting term limited so that it would occur in year 1 and year 3 of a presidential term. I believe the logic is that if a president has a potential to nominate 2 judges per term, the nominations no longer become huge political battles. The make up of the court would be constantly changing and you donât have a loser like Clarence Thomas staying on the Court for decades.Â
Whomever had the idea, I think itâs a good one.Â
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Aug 30 '26
Santorum? LolâŚmaybe it was a reform to deal with âactivistâ judges the GOP used to rail against.
Yep. When the court had a liberal majority, the right was all about reforming it.
62
u/PollutionPatient8261 Aug 29 '26
NO. The entire point of "Lifetime" appointments was to make the court incorruptible, IT DID NOT WORK, so 18 years is ENTIRELY too long for the same people to define justice in a nation. The court should rotate every 4 years and to even be considered for appointment there should be prerequisites and character investigations and background checks and public hearings out the ass!
19
u/TristanTheRobloxian3 Aug 29 '26
no, 4 would make every nomination way more charged politically so you could get a really shitty person in for just 4 years to fick shit up, then they could leave
6
u/zue4 Aug 29 '26
Yeah I think he's saying it shouldn't be nominated. Impossible to not be politically charged when they need to be nominated by a politician.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TristanTheRobloxian3 Aug 29 '26
nominate by the people then. hold a vote
→ More replies (6)5
u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda Aug 29 '26
Electing judges is the absolute worst idea. The public as a whole has absolutely no idea what separates a good judge from a bad judge. Especially an appellate judge like SCOTUS.
2
7
u/know_your_anemone Aug 29 '26
The vetting process should happen before they become a court judge at any level. The idea that the federalist society was allowed to manipulate our legal system is insane. You canât be in cahoots with other judges.
But I like 18 years solely because of the generational argument. I would like a constitutional convention every 17 years too. Expand the house to represent every 30k people and political parties and super pacs will start to lose power. We could enter a multi-party system and start to have a government that actually reflects the will of the people.
→ More replies (23)19
u/JeremyPatMartin Aug 29 '26
The people who said that literally owned humans as private property
→ More replies (5)4
u/FilmAndLiterature Aug 29 '26
Ideally you want the court to serve for longer than the president because it means one bad president canât pack the courts, but not so long that bad appointments can accumulate.
5
u/ProgrammingPants Aug 29 '26
And when Republicans are in charge of these "character investigations" how do you think it's gonna go?
→ More replies (1)3
u/henryeaterofpies Aug 29 '26
While I agree in principle, who controls the vetting process? Because if one party manages to get control of it suddenly anyone they disagree with lacks the right character to be a judge.
3
u/The_Rope_Daddy Aug 29 '26
This is only a good idea if they also become elected officials. Letting any president have full control of the Supreme Court is a horrible idea.
2
u/echoshatter Aug 29 '26
Letting any president have full control of the Supreme Court is a horrible idea.
Boy do I have bad news for you....
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/Mazzi17 Aug 29 '26
As a Canadian I think ideally youâd hold them accountable at some point if they become corrupt. Also should not have republican/democrat majorities. If decisions cannot be made after x # of tries, re-appoint them.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Gemstone9523 Aug 30 '26
8 years to make it less volatile. There needs to be something to "resist" large swings in political ideology within the executive.
9
u/moose_knuckle_ninja Aug 29 '26
Just as soon as they set term limits for themselves.
→ More replies (13)
15
u/UpstairsArmadillo454 Aug 29 '26
Age limit would be better
→ More replies (5)16
u/Sellazard Aug 29 '26
Why not both?
Over 60 is too old and 18 is too long for any bureaucrat to hold a seat
→ More replies (21)3
14
u/NoTop4997 Aug 29 '26
18? That is too long. I want under a decade.
13
u/MasterTolkien Aug 29 '26
For the Supreme Court, you want a level of consistency long-term. And if you stagger the appointments, you get some gradual fresh bodies while keeping experience.
That said, the current Court needs to be expanded in order to undo the blatant corruption of the MAGA members.
5
u/echoshatter Aug 29 '26
For the Supreme Court, you want a level of consistency long-term.Â
The irony being that if the court was full of honest people who stuck to the law rather than their ideologies, term limits wouldn't matter.
The only reason we're talking about term limits is because justices aren't doing their jobs and being impartial mediators of the law.
Sounds like the issue isn't term limits, it's setting up boundaries for justices to follow.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)2
u/geekette828 Aug 29 '26
This. Pllus how slow the government actually works, if the seats rotate too often, even less stuff will get done. They'll spend more time appointing people than doing the will of the people.
"Make it faster" doesn't work great in the system we have, even with improvements. And any cap is better than "lifetime" we have today.
Also people need to remember that making steady progress away from what we have is going to be better than extremes or nothing.
7
4
6
u/whatinthehello Aug 29 '26
Or we could just hold corrupt individuals accountable no matter their status or title. Just a thought.
3
u/Decent-Box5009 Aug 29 '26
Should be an age limit on presidents and there should be no lobbying, super pacs or anything of that nature. It doesnât serve the publicâs interests. Until politics returns to that society is doomed.
3
3
u/Civil-Nothing-3186 Aug 29 '26
There should also be a process to remove them when they are as obviously political, corrupt, and unwilling to follow the constitution as some of our current judges are.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/Infinite-Ad-1055 Aug 29 '26
A Bill wouldnât be enough. Since open-ended terms for SCOTUS is in the Constitution, changing them would require an Amendment. Not an easy thing to do.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Orcrist90 Aug 29 '26
Not necessarily. The current federal court system including SCOTUS was implemented by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 because Article III of the Constitution actually gives Congress immense power over the structure of the courts. A bill amending or repealing the Judiciary Act wouldn't force the justices to retire from the judiciary itself but rather rotate them off the Supreme Court and into a different circuit.
Congress could also take the opportunity to provide a law defining the "good behavior" clause of Article III Section I and tie that into a new judicial code of conduct/ethics that would empower Congress, the DOJ, and/or any other governing body deemed by Congress to legally review and take action against any federal judge, including SCOTUS justices, who violate those standards with penalties like fines, suspension, removal from the bench, and/or criminal prosecution (which would effectively bypass the Impeachment Clause because the Constitution only says "they shall hold their offices during good behaviour," which doesn't necessitate Impeachment, especially if Congress passes a legal definition for that clause hinging upon judicial conduct).
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Rocketparty12 Aug 29 '26
Passing a bill will do nothing. Lifetime appointments are prescribed directly in the Constitution. Setting term limits on the Supreme Court would require a constitutional amendment.
Really concerning how many people in these comments donât seem to know that. Itâs explicitly written in the Constitution, it canât be changed will a simple act of Congress.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/sidaemon Aug 29 '26
This is a bad call. I know the court right now is jacked but it's jacked because both sides used to respect the power the court had and they would not allow corrupt judges through.
Put limits in place and they just become political pawns of whoever is in power. That's why the founders elected to nominate them for life.
What we need to do is actually pull the trigger on impeaching and removing some of them and get things back on track that way. Not just do some knee jerk reaction without thinking about how that reaction is likely to make things worse.
3
3
u/No_Signature2341 Aug 29 '26
Anyone in any role without change should be limited to 10 years. After that you either lose sight of your limitations, the actual goal of the role or you become jaded.
3
3
3
3
u/Powerful-Winner-5323 Aug 30 '26
An age limit is needed as well, we don't need another Comatose McConnell.
5
u/mrflash818 Aug 29 '26
1, $ s/18-YEAR/10-YEAR/g
Eighteen is too long, in my humble opinion.
Ten years allows a different POTUS to nominate a replacement.
2
u/Ghosts_of_the_maze Aug 29 '26
Ironically this President would have had a window with which to circumvent the 10 year time difference.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AnotherHavanesePlz Aug 29 '26
Yeah, GL with that. Even if Democrats had both the House, Senate, and Presidency they wouldnât have the spine to follow through.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/jugmiike Aug 29 '26
That should go for all politicians as well. But they will never do that to themselves!!
2
u/Skags27 Aug 29 '26
Iâd take 18 over what we have now. It feels long but overcorrections can lead to even bigger disasters which likely would lead to undoing the change and then not revisiting it for decades.
2
2
2
u/Mystic_Sunshine2 Aug 29 '26
When all these positions were created, people didnât live that long. There needs to be age limits.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Saino_Moore Aug 29 '26
Add in language bringing back two-thirds vote for installing new a new judge, thatâs what it takes for removal.
2
2
2
u/TomeThugNHarmony4664 Aug 29 '26
We also need to increase the number of justices. When nine became the default number, the US had a population of less than 100 million.
The number is a matter of statute. It is not in the Constitution. That makes it much less onerous (if we ever elect a Congress that wants to actually govern) to change.
2
u/w0ndernine Aug 29 '26
Weâve also only ever had two senators per state since enactment.
2
u/TomeThugNHarmony4664 Aug 29 '26
Yeah, but that would require an amendment to change. And make the electoral college even more out of whack. First ditch the Electoral College, and add more Reps so that it would be more equally representative (itâs in the name, even), and then we could look at the mess the Senate is.
2
2
2
2
2
u/ephemeralsynth Aug 29 '26
Next: remove the ones who've perjured themselves or taken bribes for favorable rulings â
2
2
2
u/Sigvarr Aug 29 '26
Wtf that is still a lifetime, should be 8 years max just like the president. I would be ok with lower than that though.
2
u/Irvineknight Aug 29 '26
Well 18 years was a lifetime when it was originally set up. I agree with term limits.
2
2
2
u/mrbananas Aug 29 '26
How about a maximum age limit to go with the minimum age limit for all positions.Â
2
u/Yaozong1 Aug 29 '26
Judicial term limits and mandatory senior status are both good things. At all levels, though.
2
2
u/extifer Aug 29 '26
Behind the Bastard did an episode on Clearance Thomas and I would agree with this. True POS and the damage they do is ever lasting.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/DavidlikesPeace Aug 29 '26
Good decision, but far too late.
Democrats realized a decade too late that the GOP have rigged the courts. We havenât had a liberal court since the LBJ era. It is insane how privileged and powerful the GOP are under the status quo.
Yes, I believe reforms like this matter, but a lot of problems have worsened in the meantime thanks to our partyâs incrementalism and reluctance to fight fire with fire.
2
2
2
2
u/Haysquirrelhay Aug 29 '26
As others have said terms should be limited to 4-8 years max to prevent consolidation of power.
2
2
u/Fragrant-Message-562 Aug 29 '26
In the words of Rage Against the Machine, abort the supreme court đđť
2
u/MWH1980 Aug 29 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/A5cMONNFFwPgA
We all know how well thatâs going to do.
2
u/Robhos36 Aug 29 '26
Democrats hate when the constitution isnât on their side. Probably the reason theyâd like to get rid of it
2
u/billhorstman Aug 29 '26
Iâm not sure if term limits could be imposed on SCOTUS justices without a Constitutional Amendment.
2
u/Slight-Bluebird-8921 Aug 29 '26
18 years is way too long
an entire life's career is around 25-30 years
18 isn't much different than an effective life time appointment
2
u/mormonbatman_ Aug 29 '26
Why 18 years?
Add 3 justices.
Divide the court in 3.
Make 4 justice seats appoint-able every 4 years.
Limit the chief justice to 2 4 year terms.
2
2
2
u/Bigredmetalhead Aug 29 '26
The only way I back this is if there are term limits for all congressmen and senators first.
2
2
u/Billitpro Aug 29 '26
Not true!!!
president nippledick and company should have lifetime appointments..
IN PRISON!!!!!
2
2
u/Mammoth_Dream_2434 Aug 29 '26
There should be more justices so that a majority is harder to get for either party.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/underisk Aug 29 '26
They shouldnât be appointed, either. Let them run for election, too.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/NihilistSRE Aug 29 '26
It seems like it should be a weird number, like 11 or 13. That way it doesn't align with an election cycle... at 18y, you're aligned with Senate terms, and pretty close to 4 presidential terms.
2
2
2
2
2
u/tensortantrum Aug 29 '26
Federal judges could get supreme Court duty the same way that citizens get jury duty and so there's so that the supreme Court isn't the political of the Pinnacle of political power, just part of the process of political power.
2
u/rylosprime Aug 29 '26
I'd make it retroactive and kick out everyone who is over that amount already.
2
u/userhwon Aug 29 '26
Lifetime isn't the issue.
Corruption is the issue.
Stop distracting from the issue.
2
u/Greymalkyn76 Aug 29 '26
18? That's ridiculous. They should also add that none of them can be affiliated with any political party. It's supposed to be a nonpartisan court. Insist that they have no connection to either party.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Afraid-Way7541 Aug 29 '26
18 is still too long especially when they start at already retirement age. Should be 5-10 years MAX
2
2
u/Glittering_Count1536 Aug 29 '26
That is better. I think we need to replace at least three due to treason
2
u/Tanooki-san Aug 29 '26
it's easy to forget the reason they have lifetime appointments in the first place, but there is a very good reason. their lifetime appointments are not the problem. but sure, break something else in hopes it will fix everything.
2
2
u/SleepingAmoebas Aug 30 '26
Two rules that every single American citizen (except billionaires) would agree on that would completely correct the total fuckery that is the current political system:
Remove ALL money from politics. Politicians cannot take a single penny from anybody, not companies, not organizations, not even private citizens. Every PAC in the country would be immediately disbanded. Any person who wants to run for political office must get a certain number of petition signatures. Once the candidate reaches that set amount of signatures, they will receive a set amount of money to run their campaign. If you don't get enough signatures, you cannot run. If too many people get the necessary signatures, the top 3/5/10/whatever with the most signatures get their campaign funded. Everybody else, try again next time.
Term limits for EVERYBODY! Being a politician should be a service to the country and citizenry, not a career path. All Congressional seats have a 3 or 4 term maximum. Once you've completed 3/4 full terms, you are no longer eligible for either house. Supreme Court Justice will have an age cap of 75. Regardless how long you've served on the bench, You must retire before reaching the age of 76.
These two simple rules will fix everything wrong with the U.S. government. If these things don't happen, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Regardless if Dems or Repubs are in charge, if the rules don't change to keep all of them from making a career of, and millions of dollars from, public service, where the only people they are actually serving are their donors, the system will continue to eat all of us.
2
2
2
u/Livid_Accountant1241 Aug 30 '26
It should include all federal judges or at least appellate courts as well.
2
u/Stochastic1934 Aug 30 '26
It's a start, but there's a whole lot more reform that is going to be needed.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/RelevantPause2831 Aug 30 '26
In Australia, under our constitution, high court justices need to retire at 70.
2
2
u/museman401 Aug 30 '26
I would be for this if it is combined with Congressional terms. 12 years house and senate. Will they do this? Absolutely not. Term limits for thee but not for me.
2
2
2
2
u/Low_Vermicelli5946 Aug 31 '26
All the senators do once elected in office⌠whatâs the difference
3
u/[deleted] Aug 29 '26
[removed] â view removed comment