▲ 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
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Are you...talking about the proposed term limits? Because that's purely legislative, there's no need to ask permission from the justices. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Justices can just rule it unconstitutional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Could they rule on it without having an overt conflict? Why wouldn't they need to recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago Because they have no rules. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago Who will force them to recuse themselves? They answer to no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago What code of ethics or oversight board demands they recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent [–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago It'd have to pass constitutional muster. Usually, it's hard for one branch of government to impose restrictions on another branch of government without a constitutional amendment. It'd end up in front of the Supreme Court to decide if they would accept that restriction or not. One of the reasons increasing the size of the Supreme Court comes up as a solution is because Congress is explicitly allowed to just do that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Justices can just rule it unconstitutional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Could they rule on it without having an overt conflict? Why wouldn't they need to recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago Because they have no rules. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago Who will force them to recuse themselves? They answer to no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago What code of ethics or oversight board demands they recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Could they rule on it without having an overt conflict? Why wouldn't they need to recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago Because they have no rules. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago Who will force them to recuse themselves? They answer to no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago What code of ethics or oversight board demands they recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago Because they have no rules. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago Who will force them to recuse themselves? They answer to no one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago What code of ethics or oversight board demands they recuse themselves? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago It'd have to pass constitutional muster. Usually, it's hard for one branch of government to impose restrictions on another branch of government without a constitutional amendment. It'd end up in front of the Supreme Court to decide if they would accept that restriction or not. One of the reasons increasing the size of the Supreme Court comes up as a solution is because Congress is explicitly allowed to just do that. permalink fedilink source parent