489
They need to stop being presidential appointees.
For fuck sakes America, you need to dial back the power of POTUS, because it's far more than any King worldwide.
What method of appointment would be better? I think there's a whole host of issues with them, but I think most would be fixed simply with an 18 year term limit and some basic corruption laws
My hot take is that the number of justices should be raised to match the number of federal judicial circuits, reasonable term limits given, and and the seat should be impeachable. Each circuit nominates and seats its own justice, and congress presides over impeachment proceedings.
That's a start.
Why not have it be similar to how the pope is elected by having the circuit and district court judges vote to nominate and congress would vote to approve. Checks and balances and all that. Congress is feckless right now though, it needs its own reform to be held through RCV, abolish the Senate, expand the house based on the cubed root of the population, and fill seats based on proportional representation in the vote.
But fat chance that ever happens. We couldn't dream of having black and brown people and women and working class people represented could we?
RCV is huge step forward compared to the current FPTP, but given the amount of power wielded by corps and foreign groups it follows that they'll still try to tilt the ballot in their favor, they'll just have to donate/bribe more than one or two candidates each election.
I think we need to move on to a system where the congress is comprised of volunteer citizens selected by random lottery. That is more likely to create a congress that evenly represents the populace, whereas candidates in an RCV ballot are still likely to be overemphasized/propagandized by the media and rich donors.
That said, this is just an off-the-cuff hot take by me. I'm not an expert by any means, just another frustrated and jaded citizen.
18 years is too long. The longer a person is allowed to keep authority, the greater the odds of corruption become. I have proposed 10 year terms in the past, but still feel uncomfortable about letting anyone have that much time.
People have told me that justices are supposed to stay a long time, to offer stability and to be free of political campaigns. However, the longer the Trump Regime operates, the greater disbelief that I have in long-held offices. To me, it feels like that I was told lies by the people who opposed term and age limits.
18 years is the correct length. It' the shortest term that prevents a single 2-term President from being able to replace the majority of the Court.
I think there is a better way. Assuming that the USA is broken up into major regions, each with their own judiciary and executive, they can send some justices to represent them on the national stage. The president of a region also picks a justice when their term begins, and that justice has a term of up to 5 years or until the next president picks their own justice. When the new executive justice is picked, their predecessor is removed from office. The judiciary and congressional justices have 10 year terms.
This prevents executive justices lasting longer than 10 years, likely 5 if a president sucks. Meanwhile, the judicial and congressional justices last 10 years by default, making them more influential than the executive.
That changes judges into representatives and completely defeats the entire purpose of the judicial branch and removes judicial independence.
It also changes the country into a confederation. We tried that in 1776 and it didn't work AT ALL, and then part of the country tried it again in the 1860s, and it lead to a war that resulted in more US deaths than all other US wars combined.
Elsewhere in the thread, I mentioned other things. Specifically, each judicial branch selects 2 justices without any interference from the executive and congressional branches. The congresses get to choose two of their own, and the executive has one justice, that is retired when a new president selects a different justice. Assuming we have four regions, that would be 20 justices on the national court.
In any case, the United States are already broken. We got an single executive branch that is in the process of kinging itself, a single congress that has abdicated responsibility, and a single judiciary without teeth nor independence.
To my mind, having regions would check and balance things, because there would be competition between them to be top dog within the overall nation.
Yes, but if each district has an executive that can also fire judges it still removes any independence from the judicial branch - completely negating its purpose.
The judicial branhlch's primary function at a national scale is to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and they can only achieve that if they are not subject to the wrath of elected officials who are upset with rulings they make after appointment.
I support 18 years, it is better than lifetime appointment.
I would also support 9 years per term, with no limit on number of terms, but requiring full process (including Senate consultation and approval) for re-appointments.
Should be the same as president.
18 years is a commonly chosen number so that each president gets two appointments each time they get elected, one in the first half of their term and one in the second half. It prevents a single president from just packing the court with their people every time, while also making sure each president actually gets appointments.
I think a president should only have one justice that they "own", at a time. When that president leaves office and the next president picks a justice, the old justice should be removed from office.
The important thing is to prevent justices, regardless of source, from establishing an nest of corruption.
I’m ok with this. Long enough to develop institutional knowledge, but eliminates the “I'm set for life and nobody can do anything to me” attitudes.
Plus about half the court would cycle out right this moment.
I suspect this would only apply to justices going forward; even if this passed, we're stuck with the current ppl.
And if they cycle out right now we'd have Trump / Federalist Society pics
Given the way the Democrats behave even if they were in power the Republicans would just have to complain that's it's 4 years too close to an election and the end result would be the same.
Not the exact amendment that the article is about. It's explicit that anyone over the limit is gone when it's ratified.
If became effective immediately, by the end of his term Trump would have installed 8 of the 9 justices on the Court, as Sotamayor and Kagan were both first-term Obama appointees.
The last time this was discussed, the idea was to cycle them out every 2 years, starting with the longest-serving (Thomas) through the newest (Jackson).
That would result in no change to the current partisan makeup during Trump's term. If it were to take effect on January 1, he would get to change out Thomas and Roberts, with the next President getting Alito and Sotamayor in their first term, and Kagan and Gorsuch in their second.
It would actually be ideal to wait until the next President (hopefully a Dem) if the goal was to restore balance, since the first 3 replacements seats were all Republican-appointed.
Though what would actually happen is the Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would all resign and be replaced by new Republicans right before the law took effect so that the longest-remaining terms were all Republican-appointed when the law takes effect.
OF course. Timing is everything
This is a constitutional amendment, y'all realize that's a generational project, right? Impeachment and removal are trivial by comparison.
Actually, the way that some of these recent bills have been worded is designed to be achievable without an amendment:
-
Justices that reach their term limit would be assigned "senior status"
-
they would still hold their appointment for life, but wouldnt actually serve on the Court again unless there was a vacancy
By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people
NGL, this is clever as fuck.
This is the kind of shit I want out of democrats. I know rule of law is iffy right now but damn I rather have them doing shit like this than peering down their glasses at us.
I wonder what the Baileys would think of this.
Can I drink them from a shoe?
why would you lie about that
By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people
...Until someone brings a lawsuit, which goes to the Supreme Court and they conveniently decide for themselves that the law imposing term limits on them is unconstitutional.
"Lifetime appointment" is still appropriate phrasing if part of their posting includes that they WILL be summarily "removed" if they are shown to be partisan.
/S obviously
Not really. The Constitution says that the SCOTUS exists but other than that, Congress can manage it. There have been MANY more than 9 justices in the past, and there have been many less. In each case, Congress passed a law setting that number.
If a 2nd American Civil War happens, we would have many generational projects to complete. Might as well get discussion about them started now, so that implementation can happen quickly when the time comes.
The Constitution specifies that the justices and other federal judges shall serve "during good behavior." This is interpreted as a lifetime appointment, subject to impeachment. That's why this proposal is written as a constitutional amendment. It would need a 2/3 majority in both houses, and then 3/4 of state legislatures would need to ratify.
There's another idea floating around to impose de facto term limits by regular federal law by rotating justices in and out of lower federal courts at defined intervals.
There are also a bunch of other things that an angry Congress could do to rein in the court (using regular federal law):
- they could use the good behavior clause to impose a written ethics code, or the CLE requirement that another commenter mentioned.
- they can set the court's jurisdiction (except for suits between states). They can take jurisdiction away.
- On another jurisdictional topic: currently nearly all of the court's docket is discretionary. They get to decide which cases to take up. Congress can take that power away and force the court to hear appeals on a mandatory basis again.
- Congress controls the annual budget. They get to decide whether the justices have money for clerks, robes, and office supplies or not.
- Congress can specify what dates the court is in session and for how long. At least one time, this power was used to try to prevent the court from meeting.
- Likewise, for a large part of the court's history, Congress decreed that the court meet in the basement of the Capitol. Not the big fancy marble building. It could happen again.
- as part of its oversight power, Congress has the power to subpoena justices to hearings and to grill them on their decisions on live TV. This actually happened to Justice Kennedy after Bush v. Gore.
Personally, I would consider term and age limits to be part of good behavior. The supreme court, much like the presidency, should be held to much higher standards than most positions of authority. Good mental health, understanding of the world, and general decency, isn't a big ask.
Too long. Term should be # of justices on SCOTUS. Currently 9, who should NOT be grandfathered in life time appointment. Instead, cycle them out based on tenure each year from when the bill is passed. Also, any SCOTUS appointee should either be selected by or have the endorsement of a majority of the federal circuits.
What would be a realistic argument for and against this. Seems like if your party is in the majority regardless you wouldn't want it and vice versa.
Originally, the Supreme Court was just supposed to be the highest court. The Founding Fathers wanted those positions to be apolitical, and they thought a good way of doing that would be making the position last a lifetime. I.e., if you dont have to worry about getting re-elected, your decisions will be more pure.
Things changed due to Marbury vs. Madison, where the court gave itself the power of judicial review, essentially the power to change laws, which is where they became much more powerful. Nowadays, people are taught that there are 3 branches of government with checks and balances over each other, which is true, but it was not originally that way until Marbury vs. Madison.
The problem with literally any government form, though, is that there is never any immunity to bad actors. Term limits dont necessarily solve anything, but if the justices are acting like any other politician anyway, we might as well treat them that way.
I would argue the best solution is ironclad ethics rules that are grounds for impeachment. E.g., if you are clearly owned by a billionaire, you should be impeached. That comes back around to the "no safety from bad actors"-problem, though, when congress refuses to do the "right" thing.
Forbid Supreme Court justices from ever owning anything ever again after they become justices. Establish a community for Supreme Court justices that has nice houses, amenities, everything that they could reasonably want, and then require that they and their immediate families live in the Supreme Court compound. Anyone found violating this oath is stripped of all benefits and exiled to Scottsdale Arizona to live out the remainder of their miserable lives.
exiled to Scottsdale Arizona to live out the remainder of their miserable lives.
Fuckin' brutal!
I honestly think the penalty for some types of financial crimes should be forcing them to live in a one bedroom apartment and work a retail or other customer service job. Scottsdale is too nice for those people, though. Maybe it should be more of an exurb that requires a long commute.
Yeah, I'm a fan of the idea, but very much not a fan of how this proposal wants to implement it. I'm much more inclined to agree with a plan that says "each president shall get two appointments to the supreme court, with one in the first half of their term and one in the second, with the longest serving member being removed from the role upon confirmation, or at the end of next federal election cycle, whichever comes first. In the case of a death of a sitting member, the most recently retired/removed member shall return to the court until the next normal appointment by the president." Phase out the current court gradually, if only to prevent a cycle of large turnover in 18 years after we lose like half out current court.
Hell yes!
How about 10 years with a 24 hour CE requirement in constitutional law and ethics every 24 months?
The founders didn't account for the level of government vulnerability to bad actors when they made SC seats lifetime appointments.
Or disproportional representation, the Patriot Act, Citizens United, etc...so many huge holes left for those who would exploit them.
So much has changed that makes term limits in SCOTUS an important check on assholes. But those who have helped usher in the fuckery items listed above will do all they can to avoid losing ground. They'll trample all over we the people as long as they can continue to sucker the rubes into actually voting for this shit show.
The founders didn’t account for the level of government vulnerability to bad actors when they made SC seats lifetime appointments.
The founders didn't account for lot's of shit; it's time to stop pretending these were uniquely wise geniuses and accept that they were shitty politicians just like we've got now. America has not changed, corruption, government oppression, and tyranny have been features of our government from day 1. There was no Revolution, more like an under new management.
Way too long, but anything limiting is better than what we have now. Probably need parameters around “election” and timing defined specifically. That would be gamified.
I would also have this go beyond the SC.
this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
489 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29791 readers
1690 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS