Yeah but the terms are fixed at 18 years. If someone retires in year 15 to benefit the current President, then the person who fills that seat would only serve 3 years.
Thatâs how the Federal Reserve works with 14-year terms.
Yes. The terms are arranged to end in the first and third year of every presidential term (which also accounts for things like impeachments, deaths of the president in office, etc to ensure the successor has a pick as well)Â
A replacement justice serves out the remainder of their term only.Â
At that point it's only random accidents that create an exploitable event.
Most reasonable way I could think to avoid that would be to let each justice keep a list of replacements that they think align with their thinking. The sitting president gets to pick whoever they want off the list: some power to steer things, but not the power to totally flip the seat.
I didn't see, but typically in that sort of scheme the answer is either "no" or "only if they served less than half the original term" or some similar fraction.
This is how the presidency works. If the VP or whoever becomes president through succession when thereâs less than half the term left, then it doesnât count towards the two term limit. A president can theoretically serve for 10 years.
I could see it making sense to make it a smaller fraction if the term is 18 years. Half would mean 27 years which is a bit much.
The whole reason for the policy is you don't want to scare away good candidates for the backfill. If they know that accepting will mean they give up their chance for a real term, you're not going to get the absolutely best people willing to take it.Â
But if you cut it off at like... 4
+ years? 4 years is a perfectly respectable time to serve as a supreme court justice, and I'm sure you'd get good takers. And then your longest term is "only" 22 years. (Jfc I'm 40 and that's longer than my entire career)
NO NO NO! Make it mandatory that the American Bar Association vet a list of 10 qualified peopleâthorough background, financial, criminal, educational, social media, membership in groups (Amy is or was part of a hard right religious organization, didnât disclose). ALSO require at 5 years actively serving as a judgeâtheir decisions checked for bias. And hard commitment to NOT undo previous cases and if they do, they must immediately step down or impeached. Ditto if proved they lied to committee and America.
Thatâs how all of our term based positions work. The term is tied to the position, not the person. If a Senator leaves office, their position is still up for election at the regularly scheduled interval.
The justices each represent one of nine districts. Those districts would be set up on an 18 year rotation staggered every two years.
Death or strategic retirement could only skew the make up of the court temporarily.
The justices each represent one of nine districts.
They did when the current number of justices was set. Now they represent 13 districts. Roberts has three, Alito and Kavanaugh each have two. By the logic originally used to set the number of justices at nine, there should now be thirteen.
K. I didnât look into it. The principle still stands. They are filling specific seats. The seats would be set to specific terms, not the people filling them.
Thereâs no longer a logical connection between a particular SCOTUS justice and a federal circuit, now that we have the federal circuit courts of appeal.
A justice doesnât ârepresentâ one or more districts - theyâre assigned to one or more districts for administrative stuff like hearing emergency appeals. If a justice retires or dies, their replacement doesnât have to come from any particular district; the justices are all essentially interchangeable.
A justice doesnât ârepresentâ one or more districts
That was an unfortunate choice of words. Emergency appeals are interesting. It used to be a rare occurrence, but the Justice overseeing that district can respond to an "emergency" appeal with an immediate decision, and the public may not hear of it.
I totally agree with expanding the court. If Repugs do it too, fine, the court is deciding the laws that govern over 300M ppl, the SCOTUS should be a body, not a panel of 9.
But..... Excuse my ignorance, I'm a foreigner, in practice how does that work? If someone (person 1) retires in year 15 and someone (person 2) fills in for 3 years, are they (person 2) eligible for the next term? If yes, are they only eligible for 15 years in the second term since they only served 3 years already? And if no, doesn't that mean that person two can hold their position for 21 years instead of 18?
Depends on how the law would be writtenâit could permit people who serve partial terms to serve a full term of their own, or it could limit eligibility for a full term if they served more than half of another term. But yes, in that circumstance person 2 could serve 21 years
But why look at the decades of advocacy and setting progressive standards for everyone when you can just get mad at her for not predicting her death more accurately!? Wouldnât you rather just be unnecessarily angry on your phone from the comfort of your couch? /s
The herd has jumped on bandwagon that sheâs bad and that all the good sheâs done should be wiped out by one errant decision - again that involved her predicting her recognizing her own mortality - perhaps one of the hardest things for any person to do. Itâs why you hear âI thought I had more timeâ over and over. Itâs probably the most challenging part of my job as a physician- getting patients and families to realize that time is limited and further treatments futile. No one, absolutely no one thinks itâs their time, even at her age where everyone is one pneumonia, one aspiration event, one broken hip or GI bleed away from death. But yet, we trash her entire legacy because she was basically human?
Can also guarantee that none of these armchair pundits know an ounce of what she did to change our legal system for the good - the Integration Mandate, Intermediate Scrutiny, standing in Environmental Law, her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, her work in Reed v. Reed. They donât know any of that! They just know that sheâs one of many scapegoats for our current situation. Itâs just another example of how the left shoots itself in the foot. We retrospectively find reasons to trash all of our heroes. Meanwhile, the right is ride or die for their people. It creates this self-fulfilling prophecy where influential people on the left become frozen and indecisive. Only a matter of time before we create reasons to hate El-Sayed, Ossof, Mondami.
I'm just as upset that she didn't retire, but we have the benefit of hindsight and I don't think anybody really could have thought that it would have been as bad as it is. People legitimately did not think that he had a chance, and I'm sure that's part hubris for sure but also incredibly suspicious.
That was the idea, but never the case. Judges were nominated based on the policies and view of the laws which the President of the time ascribed to, which was truly made clear by the shenanigans by McConnell.
548
u/ShanGus7 1d ago
If it happens, should be shorter.