Does this plan make sense? v3 - eviltoast
  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t like a 15 year term for scotus.

    A term limit does make sense, but either in the form of a forced retirement age or a 36 year term. They should also be barred from collecting a wage or benefits from any employer after the end of their term (they should get a damn good retirement package, too).

    There are good reasons for SCOTUS to be a life appointment. You don’t want them being bought out with lucrative cushy job offers once they leave. 36 years ensures one appointee per presidential term.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      If life terms are there to prevent corruption, it doesn’t seem to be working. Maybe if there were any anti corruption laws that applied to them it might.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s just one part of preventing corruption.

        The other part is having a semi-functional Congress to, ya know, checks and balances and stuff.

    • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      A 36 year term is tantamount to a life term. If a young attorney or judge is elected to the Supreme Court in their 30s they might see the end of the 36 year term.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn’t see judges strategically timing their retirements with elections, and you wouldn’t see people faulting RBG for not stepping down under Obama. She only spent 27 years on the bench, but she was appointed at ~60.