▲ 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
[–] JonnyJ@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (2 children) The citizens of the US voting on it would be nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] crackajack@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You mean a referendum? The United States disallow it because "the country is a republic". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can even change the constitution by a referendum (never happend before, but you could). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago To slightly correct myself: The congress would need to initialize it and it was used before: For the 21 amendment (which ended the prohibition). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago Part of the original reasoning of the supreme court being appointed and not elected was for it to be above politics and allow for skilled specialists to be appointed, and honestly I'm inclined to agree with that thinking. I do believe term limits are a very good idea for all offices though. Say, 12 years for elected positions (2-3 terms) and 8-10 for appointed to allow for individuals to really get good at what they do, but keep it short enough to get new blood in there and provide clear avenues for retirement, or moving into new offices as desired by the individual. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You mean a referendum? The United States disallow it because "the country is a republic". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can even change the constitution by a referendum (never happend before, but you could). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago To slightly correct myself: The congress would need to initialize it and it was used before: For the 21 amendment (which ended the prohibition). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can even change the constitution by a referendum (never happend before, but you could). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago To slightly correct myself: The congress would need to initialize it and it was used before: For the 21 amendment (which ended the prohibition). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago To slightly correct myself: The congress would need to initialize it and it was used before: For the 21 amendment (which ended the prohibition). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago Part of the original reasoning of the supreme court being appointed and not elected was for it to be above politics and allow for skilled specialists to be appointed, and honestly I'm inclined to agree with that thinking. I do believe term limits are a very good idea for all offices though. Say, 12 years for elected positions (2-3 terms) and 8-10 for appointed to allow for individuals to really get good at what they do, but keep it short enough to get new blood in there and provide clear avenues for retirement, or moving into new offices as desired by the individual. permalink fedilink source parent