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in her aggressive defense of feminism but for the most part a justice that has been on the bench for 20+ years has outdated ideas and becomes an activist judge for the right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 if RBG had retired after 18 years she'd have been replaced by another obama pick instead of amy coathanger barrett.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 plus the amendment process is badly broken, we haven't had a new amendment since, what, the 1950s? "if you want it to be in the constitution, pass an amendment" just does not fly in this political climate.
@BrazenlyLiberal but what we end up with is nothing gets changed at all and we're stuck with the same laws as were deemed suitable 75 years ago.
I have to go. Work to do.
This debate is purely theoretical since a Constitutional Amendment is unlikely to pass any time soon.
Agreeing to disagree is one of the most vital - and most annoying - elements of civilized discussion. I disagree with you but I wish you well.
@dietotaku
Well, the 1990s, actually.
Maybe it doesn't fly but it's the law.
And maybe that's for the better. Not everyone agrees with you or me or the magaloonies on what the laws should be. Major Constitutional changes *should* be a deliberative process not subject to vagaries of current political climates.