05-30-2024, 08:21 PM
(05-30-2024, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fairly argued. Of course, the problem with them being accountable to someone makes their position subject to political whim, ruining the purpose of the lifetime appointment. Quite a nice catch 22.
This is why I favor my method for SCOTUS reform. A new justice is appointed every two years with the most senior justice serving as chief for two years. Once a justice has served 18 years, or 9 appointment terms, they "retire." Retirement in this case simply means they may still sit in a circuit and may be brought into the main bench if there is a recusal or an emergency requiring a ninth. So they remain as justices but they are not "active."
This removes the politicization of the court by allowing each POTUS to nominate two justices during their term. No POTUS would be able to stack the court with a majority because the most they could appoint would be four. It also means there is a constant rotation of jurists on the bench, avoiding things like justices holding on far longer than they should.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
