• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Actually, the way that some of these recent bills have been worded is designed to be achievable without an amendment:

    • Justices that reach their term limit would be assigned “senior status”

    • they would still hold their appointment for life, but wouldnt actually serve on the Court again unless there was a vacancy

    By doing it this way, they preserve the “lifetime appointment” part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people

    • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      14 hours ago

      NGL, this is clever as fuck.

      This is the kind of shit I want out of democrats. I know rule of law is iffy right now but damn I rather have them doing shit like this than peering down their glasses at us.

    • abrake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      By doing it this way, they preserve the “lifetime appointment” part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people

      …Until someone brings a lawsuit, which goes to the Supreme Court and they conveniently decide for themselves that the law imposing term limits on them is unconstitutional.

    • Mantzy81@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      “Lifetime appointment” is still appropriate phrasing if part of their posting includes that they WILL be summarily “removed” if they are shown to be partisan.

      /S obviously