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.
What is your background in politics? Before justices are justices, they’re lawyers, lower judges, clerks, and students. All of those roles require taking positions on important issues. Even if not directly affiliated with a party, the positions they take are more than an indicator of where they fall.
They can’t even rule that justices can’t take money from people as a bribe. They call it a “thank you”. They will never make a rule about political affiliation. Because one side is going to give them more money.
You need more than 16 years to ensure that no single president can seat a majority of the court.
Another quality this provides is that one justice rolls on and off every X years on a schedule (in this case, every 2 years).
18 is the smallest term that meets both of these criteria given the current size of the court. The only better scenario I can think of that keeps these qualities is expanding to 17 justices and rolling 1 per year, but all that does is reduce the full term by 1 year. (Removing presidential appointment altogether is probably the best proposal but that is much harder to pass.)
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.