▲ 1520 ▼ Senate Democrats introduce bill to implement term limits and biannual appointments to Supreme Court (www.washingtonexaminer.com) submitted 2 years ago by Veedem@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 years ago (3 children) Can this be done with an act of congress or does it take a constitutional amendment? permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's nothing that says it can't be done. But I'm sure SCOTUS will have something to say should a case make it to them. Constitutional amendment would be the best way. Not sure if it would be easier via Congress or State Legislatures given the implosion on Capitol Hill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago I can completely imagine the SCOTUS, especially the current SCOTUS, taking any law passed by the legislature and saying "Yeah that's unconstitutional" with the power to destroy all laws they unilaterally granted themselves. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) So much for "checks and balances" on the actual Supreme Court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) Pretty sure that the only check on SCOTUS has always been "just trust them, bro". Frankly it reflects very poorly on the public debate that there hasn't been any major debates about actually doing something about that for almost 250 years, grumbling about specific decisions not really counting.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 2 years ago No, the Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." in Article 3 and in Article 1 "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago There has been debate on this actually. I can't find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can't exactly recall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They can be impeached by the legislature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent [+] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) That's a great question. I think the short answer is that while it may technically be possible through legislation there will most certainly be immediate and then ongoing constitutional challenges. The best way to implement this would absolutely be through a constitutional ammendment so as to set an incredibly high bar in order to undo these changes. However, accomplishing that seems unlikely given the gridlock that defines congress in the modern era. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Yeah, the most realistic (but still extremely unrealistic) way of achieving it would be a constitutional convention. Besides it beingunrealisticto even make it happen, that would be a horrible idea though, since there being little to no framework about exactly how it would work, which means that unscrupulous politicians (*cough& Republicans cough) could potentially add or remove several other amendments. All that to say that this is probably the most effective method currently available. As a bonus, the SCOTUS overruling it would probably cause such an uproar that Congress would attempt to introduce a new way that CAN'T be blocked but doesn't require changing the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 2 years ago My question is, who brings suit? You can't bring suit if you're not an injured party. The justices can't bring suit without recusing themselves. This is quite the conundrum. permalink fedilink source parent [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would take a constitutional amendment, something that isn't going to happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why would it take a constitutional amendment when the Constitution doesn't define the parameters for the Supreme Court? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 point 2 years ago The constitution says they serve "in good behavior", so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's nothing that says it can't be done. But I'm sure SCOTUS will have something to say should a case make it to them. Constitutional amendment would be the best way. Not sure if it would be easier via Congress or State Legislatures given the implosion on Capitol Hill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago I can completely imagine the SCOTUS, especially the current SCOTUS, taking any law passed by the legislature and saying "Yeah that's unconstitutional" with the power to destroy all laws they unilaterally granted themselves. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) So much for "checks and balances" on the actual Supreme Court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) Pretty sure that the only check on SCOTUS has always been "just trust them, bro". Frankly it reflects very poorly on the public debate that there hasn't been any major debates about actually doing something about that for almost 250 years, grumbling about specific decisions not really counting.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 2 years ago No, the Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." in Article 3 and in Article 1 "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago There has been debate on this actually. I can't find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can't exactly recall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They can be impeached by the legislature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent [+] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago I can completely imagine the SCOTUS, especially the current SCOTUS, taking any law passed by the legislature and saying "Yeah that's unconstitutional" with the power to destroy all laws they unilaterally granted themselves. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) So much for "checks and balances" on the actual Supreme Court. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) Pretty sure that the only check on SCOTUS has always been "just trust them, bro". Frankly it reflects very poorly on the public debate that there hasn't been any major debates about actually doing something about that for almost 250 years, grumbling about specific decisions not really counting.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 2 years ago No, the Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." in Article 3 and in Article 1 "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago There has been debate on this actually. I can't find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can't exactly recall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They can be impeached by the legislature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent [+] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) Pretty sure that the only check on SCOTUS has always been "just trust them, bro". Frankly it reflects very poorly on the public debate that there hasn't been any major debates about actually doing something about that for almost 250 years, grumbling about specific decisions not really counting.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 2 years ago No, the Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." in Article 3 and in Article 1 "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago There has been debate on this actually. I can't find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can't exactly recall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They can be impeached by the legislature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 2 years ago No, the Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." in Article 3 and in Article 1 "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It could be said that Congress is mandated to pass a law defining Good Behavior, so that the judicial branch can execute its powers as defined in the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago There has been debate on this actually. I can't find it because all search results are returning articles about current trust, but there was a period in history of very low trust in the court. This almost lead to some major changes, but they managed to rehabilitate their image by not being total villains. I want to say this was surrounding civil rights stuff, but I can't exactly recall. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) They can be impeached by the legislature. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but we already know how that would work out.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Only because half of the legislature is also corrupt. It is a check on the power of the judicial beanch. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 point 2 years ago Half? Please, there's maybe a dozen senators and representatives combined that DON'T accept legal bribes 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) That's a great question. I think the short answer is that while it may technically be possible through legislation there will most certainly be immediate and then ongoing constitutional challenges. The best way to implement this would absolutely be through a constitutional ammendment so as to set an incredibly high bar in order to undo these changes. However, accomplishing that seems unlikely given the gridlock that defines congress in the modern era. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Yeah, the most realistic (but still extremely unrealistic) way of achieving it would be a constitutional convention. Besides it beingunrealisticto even make it happen, that would be a horrible idea though, since there being little to no framework about exactly how it would work, which means that unscrupulous politicians (*cough& Republicans cough) could potentially add or remove several other amendments. All that to say that this is probably the most effective method currently available. As a bonus, the SCOTUS overruling it would probably cause such an uproar that Congress would attempt to introduce a new way that CAN'T be blocked but doesn't require changing the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 2 years ago My question is, who brings suit? You can't bring suit if you're not an injured party. The justices can't bring suit without recusing themselves. This is quite the conundrum. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Yeah, the most realistic (but still extremely unrealistic) way of achieving it would be a constitutional convention. Besides it beingunrealisticto even make it happen, that would be a horrible idea though, since there being little to no framework about exactly how it would work, which means that unscrupulous politicians (*cough& Republicans cough) could potentially add or remove several other amendments. All that to say that this is probably the most effective method currently available. As a bonus, the SCOTUS overruling it would probably cause such an uproar that Congress would attempt to introduce a new way that CAN'T be blocked but doesn't require changing the constitution. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 2 years ago My question is, who brings suit? You can't bring suit if you're not an injured party. The justices can't bring suit without recusing themselves. This is quite the conundrum. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) It would take a constitutional amendment, something that isn't going to happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why would it take a constitutional amendment when the Constitution doesn't define the parameters for the Supreme Court? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 point 2 years ago The constitution says they serve "in good behavior", so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why would it take a constitutional amendment when the Constitution doesn't define the parameters for the Supreme Court? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 point 2 years ago The constitution says they serve "in good behavior", so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 point 2 years ago The constitution says they serve "in good behavior", so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment. permalink fedilink source parent