Imagine having the legacy of being the judges that this law was even proposed because of
Like they care. If they're forced to retire, they'll get cushy jobs making bajillions for law firms or lobbyist groups.
They won’t need them. They’ll still get paid…
But not bajillions of dollars. How can you expect Uncle Clarence to afford all of those trips on his paltry retirement plan?!
One of the primary justifications for having a lifetime appointment was to take corruption out of the equation, and that’s clearly not working, so…
When a deeply corrupt branch is responsible for installing appointments to another branch with no public accountability whatsoever... yeah. One bad apple spoils the barrel, and a solid half of the barrel is nothing but the most pungent, loathsome rot.
Good. I’m not sure how the founding fathers didn’t conceive of this becoming a problem in the first place
The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was having faith in our ability to overcome (or at least resist) our worst traits.
And having slaves, too. That was a big mistake
Oh, jeez, yeah. Okay, having faith in people was their SECOND biggest mistake.
What about not letting women vote or count as people?
My initial reaction was “of course I don’t think sexism is okay. Give me a break”… but then I remembered that this is the internet, where lots of people do think sexism is okay. Plus, you have no idea who I am or what my personality is like. You asked a completely fair and reasonable question.
Social justice and progressive values are important to me. Sexism/bigotry are on the long list of things that the founding fathers got wrong.
Ah sorry, I meant it more as a joke to show that the founding fathers were flawed more than we can count, and holding them up on a pedestal that many people do is wrong. I was expecting a response like "Ah shit, okay maybe THIRD biggest mistake."
Lol okay, I get it! No problem.
Weren't a few of them outright begging for people to not cling to political parties? They probably were hoping that the courts would remain bipartisan just because they would be on the stands longer than whatever recent trend was going on when they were nominated in.
Whereas if they had terms like the other branches they would always be voted in based on current issues.
Of course, at the time they did all this, Judicial Review hadn't even been conceived yet, let alone using judicial review to undo other supreme court cases en-masse.
Weren't a few of them outright begging for people to not cling to political parties?
For the most part they were stupid to do so. Coalition building is independent of even government system. Look at the political parties behind the Nikea riots during the reign of Emperor Justinian. The truth is you could have sortition form the legislative branch and they would STILL develop political parties.
Jefferson, when the Court granted itself the power of judicial review (which, yes, they just gave themselves because they were the authority and nothing said they couldn't) warned us about despotism from the courts. For as many flaws as that man had, he was dead-on about that
His flaws were as a person rather than as a social and political thinker. Which leads to why he's such a hot button figure.
I mean I definitely get their reasoning behind it. I’m just saying that I don’t understand how they didn’t realize lifetime appointments could lead to some really shitty consequences if the wrong people were put in power.
Like, they set term limits for everything else because they saw the absolute shitfest what having a lifetime-appointed official could have with the king, but they didn’t think about the possibility of the supreme court getting filled with people who were just as, if not more, awful?
Just seems like a major oversight
I suppose they thought the vetting process and confirmation hearings would be enough.
They were wrong.
250 years ago, men in positions of power were expected to adhere to a minimum public standard or remove themselves out of honor. This is something the current Republican party doesn't care at all about so the system is breaking down.
Not to mention, the only people eligible to vote were rich landowners that could delegate daily "work", so they had the time and were expected to stay up to date on politics. It was essentially required of their position in society.
250 years ago, men in positions of power were expected to adhere to a minimum public standard or remove themselves out of honor.
I feel like impropriety isn't a new problem. For example in 1787 we had to remove senator William Blount for trying to get Britain to invade Florida in a land speculation scheme. This is more so just recency bias.
Well then that went away not long after because we had a congressman beat a senator with a cane, until he was unconscious, in the chamber of congress. He came up behind him and hit him over the head with a can that had a metal knob handle at the end. He hit him over and over and the senator never fully recovered from the beating, leaving him with chronic conditions the rest of his life.
The congressman who beat him "retired" to avoid the censure, and then was quickly re-elected and put back into his position. So, I don't think the past had any more honor, civility, etc. than we do today. I actually am of the mind we are far more civil today than 250 years ago after reading, and listening to, first hand accounts of life at the time.
I know a fair few Republicans have also said they wanted this. So I fully expect them to oppose this on the basis of "if a dem proposed it, it must be SATANISM".
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Satanism? Really? Come on. Be fair to the Republican position.
If a Democrat proposes something it's socialism, duh. They know the Democrats are all dirty heathens and don't care about Satan.
You literally don't have a functioning House. There won't even be a Speaker to put your silly little bill in permanent time out.
You could have done this two years ago, no problem. But now all you're proving is how much to suck at doing politics.
I love that we're doing this, I hate that it's not an amendment to the constitution.
I feel like this purposal doesn't tackle the subject appropriately.
Historically there's been streaks of one party winning elections (like 1869-1885) this kind of change might end up ensuring the SCOTUS is even more polarized.
I think an approach more focused on auditing justices to ensure they don't fall to impropriety would make more sense.
First of all having the supreme court be political at all is bizarre. They should be some of the best judges in a country that enforce the law in the most fair way possible and they shouldn't be elected, they should be hired.
But if you are gonna do that, the judges that are elected should reflect the current political views of the majority and not what people thought years ago.
If the people decide that one party is better for many years, the judges should be of that party. Basically if the people are "polarized" the supreme court should be "polarized" as well.
To be fair for the most part Scotus judges aren't really 'republican' or 'democrat' but are normally grouped based on how they interpret law, with completely different names like 'originalists' or 'textualists'. The idea was them being nonpolitical arbitrers of law. But of course they're still appointed by presidents who fall into a party who insert bias by selecting someone they like.
Id vote for that.
I'd love to know under what conditions this proposal is constitutional.
The supreme court is a right wing sclerotic fistula providing passage to creeping fascism, but reinterpreting Article 3 Section 1 is a tall order. By only saying that justices shall "hold their offices during good behavior" the Constitution is traditionally read to mean that only impeachment, retirement, or death will end a term.
Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.
This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness