• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a constitutional amendment, y’all realize that’s a generational project, right? Impeachment and removal are trivial by comparison.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 days ago

      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

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

      • abrake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

      • Mantzy81@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        “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

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.