642
Does this plan make sense? v3
(lemmy.world)
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
Rules and Policies
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.