@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.

@dietotaku

I have absolutely no problem imagining worse corruption.

And who's suggesting consequence-free anything? An explicit enforceable ethics code is a vital part of current considerations re SCOTUS.

@dietotaku

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@dietotaku

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, some pretty significant good decisions have been formed since the Federalist Society was formed, among them notably Obergefell v Hodges comes to mind.

The problem arises not with justices to retire when a "good" POTUS is in office, but with the candidates submitted by POTUS and approved by the Senate. That means, inevitably, that the responsibility lies with the voters to haul ass out of their Barcaloungers and cast informed votes putting good people in those positions.

@BrazenlyLiberal but look at who was responsible for that good decision. on the majority: kennedy, breyer, RBG, kagan, sotomayor. kagan & sotomayor were pretty new to the bench. RBG would have been replaced by another liberal. breyer also would've been replaced by a liberal if he had retired after 18 years. kennedy was the only majority opinion who was appointed by a republican and replaced by a republican and would've been replaced by a republic if he had retired after 18 years. 1/2

@BrazenlyLiberal 2/2 so what about the dissenters? roberts, scalia, thomas & alito, 3 of whom are STILL FUCKING HERE now wielding the majority opinion. roberts hit 18 years last year, so if he had been replaced we wouldn't have the godawful immunity decision or rolling back chevron. scalia, same deal as kennedy. thomas should've been replaced in 2009 by - you guessed it - obama. and alito should've been replaced this year. so we'd still have a majority for good decisions, while avoiding the bad.

@dietotaku

You assume they would have been replaced by someone whose values coincide with yours. Unfortunately, laws that work for one side also work for the other. If we picture Obama, Biden, Harris replacing Alito et al, we can't avoid the possibility of Trump replacing the ones we like with complete assholes through the same rules & processes.

I get that it's frustrating - I'm frustrated, too.

@BrazenlyLiberal i assume that obama would replace them with someone with liberal values, yes. and i pointed out when their terms - had they existed - would have expired to show that a democrat has been in office way more than a republican over the last 30-35 years. kennedy is the only justice on obergefell who ruled in favor and would have been replaced by a conservative. but there was also a conservative who would've been replaced by a liberal, and liberals who would have been replaced by (+)

@BrazenlyLiberal liberals but were instead replaced by extreme conservatives. so we would have kept obergefell, but avoided dobbs, chevron, and immunity.

@dietotaku

But look ahead. What Obama would have done says nothing about what a future president would do.

Eventually the GOP or it's successors will be in office again. And they will wield the same powers much less agreeably than he would have.

Sauce for goose can be pretty bitter.

@BrazenlyLiberal that's the same argument used to preserve the filibuster and it just doesn't hold water. my point was if we had 18yr term limits, obama would have been able to appoint a supermajority of liberal justices. and when those terms are up, odds are there will be another democrat in office. instead we got trump using stall tactics, blackmail & rush jobs to appoint a supermajority FOR LIFE. this isn't bitter sauce for the goose, this is the antidote.