This sounds like a threat to me.
Neil Gorsuch Issues Two-Word Warning About Joe Biden's Supreme Court Plan
https://www.newsweek.com/neil-gorsuch-two-word-warning-joe-bidens-supreme-court-plan-1934399
@BrazenlyLiberal i mean, i do see a lot of potential snags in the plan. are the term limits retroactive? what happens when someone dies or resigns or is impeached in the middle of their term? if half the bench gets the boot for ethics violations, when would they be replaced? and for god's sake when are we going to have 13 justices to match the 13 appeals court circuits?
I am 1000% opposed to any term limits. I can get behind a bipartisan SCOTUS review board.
We do need a larger court - 13 sounds good. It would be harder for one POTUS to pack it the way Trump did.
@BrazenlyLiberal the thing i like about term limits is that the justices on the bench should reflect the prevailing attitudes of the electorate. notorious RBG was an outlier in her aggressive defense of feminism but for the most part a justice that has been on the bench for 20+ years has outdated ideas and becomes an activist judge for the right
But they're not supposed to reflect prevailing anything. Their role is clearly defined by law - to examine the cases before them & determine what is/isn't consistent with the Constitution. Legislating to reflect modern sensibilities is the job of Congress.
I have 2 problems with term limits. 1) We'd lose the good with the bad, no assurance the replacements will be better. 2) If you think they're corrupt now, imagine what they'd do/sell if they knew they were about to be out of work
@BrazenlyLiberal i think we've pretty well established that what they're supposed to do and what they actually do have not aligned since the federalist society was formed. and we already lose the good with the bad when the good hold on too long & are replaced by the bad because there's no "each president only gets x number of picks" rule. if RBG had retired after 18 years she'd have been replaced by another obama pick instead of amy coathanger barrett.
@BrazenlyLiberal also, it's hard to imagine justices being MORE corrupt knowing they have (a) a finite time frame in which to act and (b) actual threat of removal vs the utterly consequence-free-for-life setup they have now. if they only get 18 years, they can't bring 1980s mores to bear on 2020s cases. if we only appoint someone once every 2 years, there's no point in them colluding to retire early so a russian plant can pack the court with extremists.
Again, they are required by law not to bring 1980s or 2020 mores to their decisions. They are to determine if it is consistent with 18th century values codified in the Constitution. Some hold up better than others. That's why there's an Amendment process also in the doc.
@BrazenlyLiberal okay so what do we do when they obviously DO make decisions based on personal belief? because if you're a judge, and someone's asking you "does this document give me this right?" and it flat out doesn't say one way or the other, you still have to decide whether that right exists or not. and that decision is going to be based on your personal beliefs as to whether it SHOULD. and you're more likely to get someone who agrees with the public if they were appointed this century.