• Veedem@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      101
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for that too, but at least they can be voted out of office. Supreme Court Justices are appointed (which I’m ok with because I don’t want them campaigning) for life. Once they’re there, they never have to leave.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do the justices get protection like the president? Seems like they should have better protection since they are lifers while the president is only max 8 years.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I only just learned about this when I started a new gubment job. Wild stuff.

            Now, as to what really needs to happen here, Thomas, at the very least, should face corruption and bribery charges. Maybe conspiracy to commit, too.

            • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Federal judges sometimes don't want protection around them and it's not like the Secret Service and the President. While the Secret Service can tell the President what must happen, the Marshals can't mandate protection details. But, when things like that happen, they certainly do.

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The idea was to ensure that the court never became political. This obviously didn’t work out, but the framers had good intentions.

            • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There were no political parties and they literally believed that none would ever form. They created the US government based on the idea that parties would never exist. Naive, obviously.

        • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          while the president is only max 8 years.

          10, technically, but it doesn't change your point. Just felt like doing an ackshully.

          #sorrynotsorry

          • jackpot@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            10? i thought as long as they didnt get the majority of the term they could keep going (so thereoretically infinite)

            • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Per the 22nd Amendment, someone who has held the office for more than two years of someone else's elected term is limited to a single elected term of their own. So if you've done two or fewer, you are still eligible to be elected twice. Those two initial years plus your two elected terms would be ten years.

              No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We elect House members every 2 years and Senate every 6, whereas Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments

      This is comparing apples and plastic bottles

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like regulations on plastic bottles are just as useful as regulations on apples, even if the regulations are a bit different.

        Just because two things are different doesn't mean they can't have something in common.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He campaigned on a lot of things he never had any intention of following up on. I wouldn't take that as a sign that he actually agreed with the sentiment.

      • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ironically, one of the few explicit stipulations in the constitution about the supreme court says their salary cannot be reduced during their time in office.

    • blady_blah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds great in principle but the reality is that the problem is lobbying and money in politics, not politicians who stay in office too long. Term limits tend to give lobbyists more power because they can "guide" the new politicians more easily if a given percentage of them are always new. The problem is the money.