413
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
413 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1882 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
supreme court justices have lifetime job security to prevent corruption.
every other position in every other part of the government has term limits to prevent corruption.
edit: apparently people are having a problem with the point I'm trying to make. my point is that minimizing corruption is the supposed reasoning for term limits but also lifetime appointment, which are exact opposites.
obviously neither can prevent corruption as we can clearly see both kinds of positions hold lots of corrupt people. but at least elected officials can in theory be held accountable for their corruption in elections. supreme court justices answer to no one. for life. that's fucked up.
No, it means they can be as corrupt as they want because they're unaccountable to anyone. They never have to be reelected and there's no mechanism for removing them, or even establishing and enforcing rules. They've found the Ultimate Loophole.
A trigger is a mechanism of sorts.
that's my point
Term limits absolutely don't prevent corruption.
no, but they can surely end it sometime. a president can be corrupt but they have to fuck off after 8 years max. alito can say fuck democracy, blame his wife for it and live the rest of his life doing his best to ruin yours.
I'd say they limit the impact of corruption.
Because new people can't be corrupt? For the record, George Santos was one of the newest members of Congress.
Just because you don't know their names doesn't mean they're clean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_members_of_the_118th_United_States_Congress
So your answer is to just let known corruption continue.
How does that solve anything?
Term limits go both ways. They can introduce or reduce corruption. In general I think they add corruption, even if they wouldn't right this moment.
I'd rather pack the court or find another solution to fix corruption in the current court.
No, corruption is not the reason. They have lifetime appointments to Be independent of political leaders and to be above politics
For example, Trump maybe have appointed all too many and they may even cackle greedily while doing his bidding, but they’ll be there long after Trump is gone, doing their thing, with no ties to any remaining political leaders. Independent of politics. This is why appointing someone capable is more important than appointing a lackey, at least historically
the supreme court has never been apolitical since its inception, and it never will. people hold beliefs and opinions and that makes up their political views. they don't suddenly become empty vessels when they're appointed to any position, lifetime or not.
i don't get how appointing a lackey is supposed to be a bad idea. if anything, lifetime appointment makes it more important to appoint lackeys so your "rule" stays long after your term.