• bss03@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I support 18 years, it is better than lifetime appointment.

    I would also support 9 years per term, with no limit on number of terms, but requiring full process (including Senate consultation and approval) for re-appointments.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      The problem I see with shorter terms is more opportunity for a corrupt executive branch to pack the court with corrupt, or at least highly political, justices. With 18 year terms they could be staggered out so one justice every 2 years would reach the end of their term and need to be replaced, limiting that to 2 justices per presidential term.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        But, with shorter terms, they also get reviewed/replaced more often, in fact with 9 year terms, they get at most 2 executives / 2 senates safe.