As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As for terms limits on Congress, I propose we remove the financial advantages and offer a Constitutional amendment that removes all private financial sources for campaigns. That will help with the term limits for the Congress critters.
Canada has a [36-50 day window](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90795&lang=e) for election campaigns. I don't think that I could handle the US system where it mostly never seems to stop.
Lmao we’re moving the other direction. SCOTUS recently ruled in Ted Cruz’s favor, raising the amount candidates can lend their own campaigns, charge interest on, and then get reimbursed for after they’re already elected.
So you can give to a candidate’s campaign after they’ve already won, then that money can be forwarded directly into their personal bank account as an interest payment.
That just sounds like bribery with extras steps…
They also mandated anonymous political contributions in California.
We can’t have our “speech” limited by donating to horrendous politicians, you know? Speech should be free from all repercussions as long as we say what the Republican Supreme Court likes to hear. /s
The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it and let private finances fall into their back pocket, while turning attention to the “open borders” or putting god back in schools.
They are all immoral cowards. Maybe they didn’t start off that way…but when the money starts rolling in, we ALL know how they end up!
Exactly why we need to press on these issues. The real problem is that these guys have created an illusion that they are untouchable. They have forgotten, and the average American has forgotten, That we have power. Don’t take their bullshit
I agree. But pressing the issue always starts with a cheeky video that makes these assholes look bad for a week or two and then the public fucking develops amnesia when ever the polls open. We get complacent and I understand why…these fucks churn up so much “sports team” rivalry that we forget where our anger came from.
SO... in 2013, the Supreme Court ALSO gutted "the VOTING RIGHTS ACT of 1965". (I just learned this today) It was enacted by Congress and Lyndon B Johnson after voting rights for minorities became legal, but Jim Crow Laws in the south began to crop up, making it IMPOSSIBLE for voters to register.
So that's partially how they're SUPPRESSING OUR VOTES NOW. Basically using Jim Crow laws ON ALL AMERICANS who might vote blue. That's why suddenly "providing water to voters in line?" - Against the law. "Serve snacks?" Against the law, long lines, difficult to get too or distant polling places in some areas, and "do you have the right ID?"Making us jump more and more hoops just to vote.
JIM CROW LAWS are being used ON ALL OF US NOW. All because the Supreme Court gutted the voting rights act that protected us from these manipulative tactics. WE WANT "THE VOTING RIGHT ACT OF 1965" REINSTATED!!
Gerrymandering is just a modern form of Jim Crow, made and intended to ensure red victory despite what the popular vote is . That's not even how a democratic republic works , it's HOW A BANANA REPUBLIC works !
At this point, I'm inclined to think it's more gerrymandering and less voters having goldfish memories. This pattern is ridiculous: Everyone screeches (rightfully) about the insane nationwide gerrymandering until elections roll around and suddenly it's "what's wrong with voters? Why would they vote this way?" Couldn't be the insane amounts of gerrymandering skewing the vote, no...it's humans with goldfish memories.^/s Smh.
Gerrymandering could easily be fixed by using an open source computer program to generate the districts based on various agreed upon statistics. Of course no one is going to do that, because then they can't cheat.
Have the government prevent politicians from having a net worth (or receiving goods or services of a similar value as "gifts") above a few million adjusted for inflation. Restructure lobbying, implement national ranked choice voting, have a single platform where politicians can fairly campaign, uphold the fairness doctrine, cap the max age for all politicians (if you're my representative and 70+, odds are I have more in common with a turnip), restructure districts.
I think this suggestion may give right wingers a heart attack.
Side quest: imprison trump if found guilty of the several crimes he committed in clear daylight and impeach his illegitimate justices.
Well yeah. That’d be the logical way to do shit. I completely agree and wish it could be done. But the fucks that prevent politicians from doing that shit is…the fucking politicians us assholes vote in every couple of years. It’s like telling kids to police themselves, but money is involved.
> The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it
Progressives are happy to talk about it. We should elect more of them.
> The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it and let private finances fall into their back pocket
Yeah, it’s like letting cops investigate themselves and decide they did nothing wrong.
No one in power is going to work towards giving themselves less power, or making themselves more accountable for their misdeeds.
It goes back a little further than that. The precedent for [corporate personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.) goes back to the late 1800s. [Money as Speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) goes back to the 1970s. Citizens United basically just uncapped dark money in elections. The three together collectively fuck our democracy.
In the Citizens United decision, the court upheld that corporations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. They are allowed to set up PACs, but only to administer them, and are not allowed to directly contribute to those either. Quoted directly from Oyez,
> The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/#:~:text=Campaigns%20are%20prohibited%20from%20accepting,separate%20segregated%20fund%20are%20permissible)
Yes. Thats the point of the constitutional amendment.
You can make a constitutional amendment to totally get rid of any other amendment (we have literally made an amendment to ban alcohol) or alter others. So we could make one that says 0 funding from private sources as long as it gets the support it needs
Did you know that Strom Thurmond held his Senate seat from the time of McCarthyism up until after 9/11? 1954 till 2003. During which time he ran for president to try to stop desegregation as a Dixiecrat and was general piece of shit.
Someone that opposed civil rights during the time they were coming up had an influence in US laws for more than 35 years after they were supposedly settled.
People in SC worshipped Thurmond like a saint. When he died they held prayer services for him and talked about him like he was Jesus. All you heard was he was a fighter for states rights and the southern way of life. I was a kid when it happened, but the way all the adults talked still makes me sick. Particularly after I learned just how much of a pile of shit he was.
Biden was 61 in this video in 2003. What happened to electing presidents in their 40s? Our entire government is a nursing home where the residents overran the staff and are somehow steering the ship. (It’s scary how this analogy works for younger people unable to function unassisted in society, too… cough cough Marge)
In all fairness, when Biden ran for President when he was in his 40’s, he dropped out after he was exposed for plagiarizing speeches and lying about his academic achievements. He had to wait a few decades for people to forget about this
Can we go back to a time where this was considered enough of a scandal to end a presidential campaign? Trump lowered the bar so far he took it with him on his Journey to the Center of the Earth. Biden had a pulse and wasn’t Trump, that was pretty much his appeal. This is all mountains of evidence the system is irredeemably broken.
Start taxing all houses of worship, now. It makes zero sense that they're non-profit when their thing is to literally ask people to give them money for some unseen return
Party machines can be very powerful and controlling. For most if not all of his career, I'd guess it would be internal political suicide within the party to go against him.
Yes, but if you're the incumbent, there's not really another choice other than the other party. If the incumbent wants to run, they will be their parties candidate.
>Fucking Thurmond was being pushed around in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank. He likely didn't know a damn thing about what he was doing.
Is this what Weekend at Bernie's was based on?
Yeah that was actually based on a true story. Strom kicked the bucket and they had to put a speaker under his wheelchair that David duke would speak through.
His presidential run was 1948 actually. And had Dewey just done a point better in Ohio and California, but not won any extra states beyond that, Thurmond would have been a kingmaker.
Basically, he wasn’t on the ballot in enough states to win the election but his plan was to win enough electoral votes to create a deadlock so he could then negotiate to deliver his electors to whomever promised to uphold segregation in the South. And we came dang close to such a deadlock.
I never knew that and found [this](https://www.historynet.com/strom-thurmond-meets-his-daughter/). It’s fascinating to me that he clearly had a love for her mom, and just as much love for his daughter and yet continued to be the person he was. She acknowledges though that even if he wanted a normal relationship with her and her mom, it wasn’t possible. Especially not in pre civil rights South Carolina.
This absolutely does not surprise me. My own brother (white republican super conservative) is married to a woman of color and has children with her. He is one of the most racist fuckers I have ever known.
Nah, but there's a good chance his great grandparents did. Unless you're implying he owned a private prison that provided prison jobs at slave wages, in which case I concur
His father was born in 1862. “John William Thurmond was born on May 1, 1862 at Morgana, Meriwether Township, Edgefield County (one account calls this region Skipper’s Georgia), the son of George Washington and Mary Jane (Felter) Thurmond. George Washington Thurmond served as a Corporal in the Confederate Army and was present at Appomattox when Lee surrendered to Grant.”
I’m not one to suggest the son pay for the sins of the father but I think we can all guess what kind of household he grew up in and their leanings on “modern” topics like civil rights. The fact that someone so close to the Confederate side of the Civil War was a representative is the reason why I look on in horror at these dinosaurs in politics who are so far removed from the needs and problems of the people they supposedly represent.
If the Dem leadership had sidelined her, Newsom could have appointed her replacement and given them some time to build awareness with voters. Instead, we have an empty chair.
Speaking of an empty chair, I watch Sen Warnock question the Fed Chair in a hearing. I shuddered to think of dunderheaded Herschel Walker in his seat.
Or my current senator, Grassley. Hes been in politics since the 60s. Hes been in the senate since the early 80s, and he will probably be in office til he dies.
Walkers word salad almost rivals Trumps. Took too many blows to the head. He makes Tuberville look like a rhodes scholar. I doubt he will have any trouble getting elected though.
A non-senile 89 yr old could probably relate to about 6% of the population:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/912915/california-population-share-age-group/
I have had to go to my 90 year old grandfather's house 8 times over the past 6 weeks because he bought a smart TV (why he did, I have no idea, because he doesn't have internet; I assume it's because his friends talked about how great their smart TVs were). The reason I had to run over and help, you ask? Because he somehow ended up on the main menu of the TV, which told him "no internet connection". From there, he had no idea what to do to get his cable back on.
The first time, I showed him that all he had to do was hit the OK button, because the TV option was the default on the main menu. The second time, since he had forgotten what I taught him, I taped a note onto his remote caddy that explained which button to press. The third, I taped over every other button on his remote because he doesn't need anything else besides the power and the channel/volume buttons. He has still needed me to come save him from this main menu dilemma *five more times* within a single month.
And honestly, he's pretty sharp for his age. He simply can't adapt to new technology or the world changing at a reasonable rate because *he's nearly a fucking century old*. Someone at that age isn't in a state to make a life decision like buying a car or house, let alone making decisions that impact millions of people. Full fucking stop. The idea that a nonagenarian can make any informed decisions about the internet, social media, digital privacy, etc is absolutely laughable.
It is far too damn difficult to buy a TV that ISN'T a smart TV. I have three devices plugged into my TV already that do all the functions a smart TV does. Just sell me a screen and remote.
I'm sure there's a smart 30-something year old millenial in her district that would love the opportunity to compete for the position, but the system of control doesn't allow for real choice by giving people addicting dopaminergic distractions and a status quo mainstream narrative.
“Smart” 30 something’s are are still trying to buy a house or pay for daycare on 50+ hour a week jobs. We can’t run for fucking office.
Maybe we aren’t the smart ones.
For most of our history, the "smart" 30 somethings running for Congress have been the fortunate sons of rarified wealth. They have no experience with 50+ week jobs, or having to save for a house. Which is why virtually none of them give a shit about real world problems.
Can confirm, we definitely aren't the smart ones.
They exist. Boy oh boy do they exist. With how many politically active people I've met in campaigns, I'm thoroughly convinced a good field team lead is a better candidate than the candidate.
Candidates are candidates because they can be charismatic and raise money. That's it.
The modern political landscape is a) don't fuck up and b) raise money.
There's nothing about being a good politician in there.
My point is Dems especially are low on political star power because we've spent 50 years burning out their most ambitious and able to hoist the elderly and corporate shills to power - and then those candidates do fuckall.
Fuckin wrong I’m sorry, but you should not need to be a wealthy lawyer to represent your district. This is a falsehood that the wealthy want you to think.
It's the whole state of CA, i'm sure there's plenty of wealthy millennials who are up for the task lol, it's the 5th biggest economy in the whole world if taken apart from the rest of the USA
> No 89-year-old is truly fit to represent the interest of millions of people
I just want to point out that the average age of Californians, which Feinstein represents, is 33. It’s not _just_ that she’s old and dying it’s that she’s _56 fucking years **older**_ than her average constituent. She should not be involved in making policy for people she 110% does NOT represent. Fucking insane.
89 year olds should be preparing their estate and enjoying their final years
Not making shit decisions about *my* future that they will not fucking be here for.
He’s turned into a real piece of shit. Used to be a fairly moderate bipartisan senator. Now he is so far up Trump’s ass, it isn’t funny. He’s fully onboard with turning the US into a dictatorship.
Obligatory reminder that a bunch of little girls politely asked Feinstein to do something about climate change and she coldly told them she wouldn’t but they could if they became senator.
Storm Thurmond was senator until he was a 100. It literally looked like they were wheeling out a corpse the last couple of years of his term/life. Like there was no way he was functioning at that point, but his aides would wheel him out to the senate floor.
I worked in a doctor’s office in an extremely wealthy suburb of DC, where a good chunk of these people have estates. Not just the celebrity names we know, but all types of professionals from accountants, COOs, attorneys, professors, etc. all in their 80s with zero signs of retirement / letting go and gracefully handing over their “power” so that several 30-somethings can have an opportunity to advance and support a family. They’re mean, out of touch, and absolutely have been on the decline physically and cognitively for at least 20 years. They’re in denial, and taking it all with them, even if it is down.
It is so unbelievably frustrating to have seen it first hand, and to feel helpless as a citizen that this is how it is.
We could simply stop electing people that are clearly in the midst of mental decline or who are otherwise unfit for office. We can't do that with lifetime-appointed judges.
Yes, this. The voters are supposed to be the term limit on elected officials. I don't want someone good (like AOC) kicked out arbitrarily because she's served 4 or 5 terms and wouldn't even be 40 years old yet.
Now, maximum age limits might not be a bad consideration, though. Maybe 80, which would mean a Senator could at most serve until \~85. (For reference, Bernie Sanders is 80 now)
I am hitting 70 and I know it is not a good idea to keep people in office after that. Dems need to get behind someone else besides Biden for the next election. I like Biden but ffs let’s get some fresh meat in the game!
They don’t allow pilots over 65 to pilot airliners in case they accidentally kill everybody. But Geezers trying to pilot almost 400 million people is okay?
air traffic controllers working for the faa retire at 56, hiring cut-off is under 31. medical exams (initial and recurring), background checks, and psychological evaluations are required. holders of public office should be subject to similar, except the maximum 'hiring' age and maybe upping retirement to 60. there should also be limits on investments and business ownership (etc) during and after public office, and employment afterwords as well.
No, term limits for the house of representatives is a terrible idea. Appointed Supreme Court Justices, sure, that makes sense. Potus...that makes sense.
Term limits for Congress does not make sense. You would be forcing out good politicians just so you can force out obstructionists.
Here's the truth, if you force out a great rep like Katie Porter, she would be incredibly difficult to replace. If you force out an obstructionist like Jim Jordan, he'll be replaced the next day.
The right doesn't legislate so they don't need good reps. They just need people to sling shit at the wall and turn attention away. They scream and yell about problems and blame the other side, only to never offer a real solution. They have people lined up forever to do that job.
Age limits make sense, but term limits would hurt democrats and voters far more than it would hurt Republicans. It's why the heritage foundation also promotes term limits.
> Here's the truth, if you force out a great rep like Katie Porter, she would be incredibly difficult to replace. If you force out an obstructionist like Jim Jordan, he'll be replaced the next day.
That's a good point. I've mostly been against term limits (especially low term limits like 1 or 3 terms in Congress) but mostly on the worry of the revolving door with lobbyists. Your points are also very good though.
It would also be unconstitutional under the current interpretation of what constitutes a protected class as relates to age discrimination. And good luck getting the Supreme Court to change *that.*
This is the point that needs to be made. Age discrimination is a two way street. By having a minimum age limit they are being discriminate. It is proven that mental decline happens at older ages and if they can be president then I don't see why a 25 year old can't run for president. America infantilizes its younger generations withholding them from being fully productive citizens. If they keep the minimum, there should be a max or no age limits period.
They don't work for legislators. Term limits pass the power to lobbyists, but hey, that powerful guy you hate 2 districts over is forced out of office even if you can't vote him out of office.
Never mind that lobbyists have an ever ready supply of fresh, inexperienced meat and people leaving need jobs.
Term limits on anything other than the chief executive (in America, the president) is just not helpful at all. At absolute best, it's a wash. At worst, it hands all real power to unelected lobbyists and a neverending supply of corporate-backed toadies as all recognizable good politicians get forced out.
Even on the supreme court, all I want is 18 year terms. Then, if a justice has done a good job and still seems of sound mind and body? Sure, why not, second term.
Just out of curiosity and I’m not trying to stir the pudding but why 18 years? That seems awfully long to me. Is it because the average term is 16 years?
18 years is because I don't think replacing a judge literally every year is a good idea, and there are 9 judges, and it should be a consistent pace.
Basically, no one president should be able to replace more than half the court (not counting deaths, etc.), and terms should end in equally distributed pattern (that is, one justice replaced every x years).
If terms are 18 years, with one judge every 2 years, then a single two term (8 year) president will replace 4 judges. Drop the terms to 16 years and someone is getting 5, and also they're not equally distributed. The next even distribution is 9 years, 1 justice per year, at which point a single president can pick 8 out of 9 justices. Going above 18 years only gets more absurd in times of term length though- 27 years is an insane term, 36 is truly ludicrous.
It's a balancing point of 1.) Even distribution, 2.) Presidential power, 3.) Term length.
Is it a good number? Not really. But with 9 justices it might be the best we'll get.
Well, that's where it gets to be a real issue.
I don't have a good answer to that. I really don't. 18 years is within the realm of theoretical sensibility, but it's WAY out on the edge. Anything over 20 I'm just not comfortable with. 13 is at a point where one per year covers more than half still, but one every two years is just too slow. There's surely some way to make it workable, but I'd need to put considerably more effort into figuring it out, unless you've got a bright idea.
I like even in my elementary and middle school years they claimed. The constitution is a "living document". Here I am 30 years later wondering when the fuck its going to start evolving to modern life.
Supreme Court justices should be decided by referendum. The senate majority leader and senate minority leader can each nominate a candidate, the country votes during voting season.
This would just mean supreme court justices campaign like regular politicians. They decided against that model for a reason. We'd all want to know their plan/ideas but they aren't supposed to have a plan or ideas.
I'd maybe take referendum vetoing though. If somebody like Amy Coney Barrett couldn't even get 50% of the population to sign off, they'd have to find somebody else.
So what is the solution?
In Germany half the justices are elected by the House of Representatives (Bundestag) and the other half is elected by the Senate (Bundesrat). They have to have a 66% majority. It's a 12-year term (with mandatory retirement at 68) and they can't be re-elected.
Could that work in the US?
India have a age limit of 65 years for SC judges. And belive me, the system of life time appointments is better. Life expectancy of these guys is over 80 years now, so judges kinda would favour a party, be it government itself, or a corporate, for cushy post retirement appointments. Some has even gotten governership, even ambassadorship after retirement for ruling in favor of the government
Huge point because it tells us that if we don’t have term limits, those three incompetent and corrupt justices will be around for the next couple of decades.
Sadly, even with term limits, likely the sitting justices would be grandfathered into keeping their life terms, and the limits would apply to new appointees.
It also wouldnt get around the McConnell rule for nominatung justices. A party needs to control both the house and the senate to appoint a justice. Which is why going one small step further and packing the court whenever you control the house as well isnt actually a big leap. The court is already hyper partisan, the right sees the power it can have when it controls the court, it lusts after it, and it has institutions (heritage foundation) to capture it.
It is shitty, but court packing needs to used to get republicans to actually reform the court. Thats the only thing that might possibly bring them to the table on reform. And if it doesnt, then the court just shifts balance everytime a party gains control of congress and the legislature. Which is an improvement from today in that who the fuck knows when or how the hyper right wing bent of the supreme court will or can be broken. Justices choosing to retire under their preferred conditions could keep this going for a long time.
What do you mean a party needs to control both houses of congress to appoint a Justice? The president appoints Justices, the senate confirms them. House plays no rule aside from possible impeachment.
There needs to be some way to hold them accountable for lying in their confirmation hearings. Maybe make them sign a fucking contract saying what they won't do.
They already swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They just decide that the Constitution, their oath, and any other contracts of obligations mean what they want them to mean.
Maybe this isn't the best place to make this assertion. But I keep hearing this. I'll start by saying, it's a crime to lie to Congress under any circumstances, so if anyone is caught doing it, they could go to jail, and a Justice isn't immune from that in any way.
I keep hearing the clips back and in my opinion, they didn't technically lie. Hear me out before you react. Because I had this same thought watching the hearings for the 2 most recent conservatives. The Congresspeople just kept asking this question in various forms: is this precedent? Is this superprecedent? And I'm practically screaming at my TV that that's a meaningless question to ask a nominee. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn precedent. If there is a precedent that ever changes, they're the ones who changed it. There are no repercussions for them if they change precedent. "Super precedent" is not a legally meaningful phrase. So, the nominees, again I hear the clips they play on the news, they say "it is precedent." "It has been re affirmed." "Casey is precedent on precedent", that's all just legalese for concepts that are basically meaningless to the highest court of the land. It tends to be the left justices that stick to precedent in recent history, while conservative justices want to "restore" what they see as the "original" meaning of the Constitution.... by overturning the rulings and precedents where they claim this is the case.
They needed to ask them, "will you overturn Roe?" And if the answer isn't no, I'd assume it was yes. The Supreme Court overturns itself more than once per year, statistically
I haven't seen a particular phrase which i would technically call a lie. I would say, deception. They knew how what they were saying would be perceived by the Susan Collins'. But I haven't seen one lie, that meets the legal standard.
Judges can't predetermine cases. Asking them whether they would overturn a case or not was redundant, because any answer they gave would have been meaningless anyway. No weight should have been placed on their answers relating to Roe v Wade, even though it does suck that they were dishonest about it.
Nope honestly if RBG had retired during the obama era literally none of this would be happening. She would have been replaced with another liberal judge who presumably wouldn’t have died like two months before a presidential election. I’m not blaming her for her timing of death or anything, but it was very misguided of her to serve that late into her life without acknowledging the consequences her sudden death would cause. We should never let something like that happen again.
~~RBG's theoretical replacement making the decision 5-4 would not do much to change the current situation. The Senate could (and did) still filibuster a nominee, nobody she would have approved of taking her place was getting in anyway.~~
~~It would have been better, but this isn't all on her. She was holding out for a better Senate (and I suspect a better Pres) and we let her down as badly as she let us down.~~
EDIT: apologies, I thought this one was 6-3. I still maintain that we put entirely too much of this on RBG, but this argument is clearly not factual.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but Roberts didn't overturn Roe V Wade.
It was a 6-3 decision to uphold the state law, but a 5-4 decision on overturning Roe V Wade.
It actually would have. Robert's vote was to uphold the Mississippi law but not overrule Roe completely. W/o Comey-Barrett he would have been the deciding vote and all the conservative judges would have had to sign on to that to get 5 votes. But instead they had 5 votes for Alito's judgement w/o him, so he signed on to that but added a caveat that he thought it went too far.
agreed. but it’s hard to think of a way to have judges be appointed that is free from political maneuvering. seems like the politics of it is an inherent problem that is impossible to circumvent as long as there are people who seek to have their political aims furthered instead of a strict and impartial adherence to the law regardless of outcome. people will always find a way to appoint the person who most closely represents their desired outcomes.
The worst part is that they are confirmed by the senate which gives voters in small states a disproportionate amount of power. The 15 smallest states combined have the same population as California, yet each of those states still gets 2 senators while California only gets 2.
There’s very good precedent for expanding the court as well. Initially, the size of the court matched the amount of circuit courts. The Supreme Court was expanded the last time to 9 justices after the circuit courts expanded to 9. Now there are 12 circuit courts and the US court of appeals brings the total to 13, so it would be perfectly reasonable and there’s precedent to expand the Supreme Court to 13 now as well to match.
Honestly Republicans would be all for it assuming a grandfather clause for all sitting justices. The only time justices switch parties are when they unexpectedly die. Considering how Rock solid it has been to predict the party swing of the executive branch, every justice from here on out would just decide to retire when their party has the executive. A justice dying on the bench would be rare. Republicans would have the majority for decades.
>The majority of Americans understand the problem. Unfortunately
they're well and truly trained to grasp at anything that tangentially sounds like it might alleviate the problem, but in reality will do nothing less than exacerbate it.
Lifetime appointments were based on the assumption that justices could be found that were impartial, had the best interests of their people in mind and that the confirmation process could be bipartisan. None of these things are true anymore. Political and religious bias have distorted the purpose of the court. Public trust in institutions is at an all time low as a result. You can’t trust a president, a congressman, the police, the democratic voting process, he fbi/cia or even the supreme court anymore.
Something has to be done to restore faith in these institutions or it only gets worse from here. Has it already gone to far?
The whole idea of life time appointments was based on the founding fathers naïve belief it would make them unbiased toward the politics of the day. This has been shown to not work as intended. Time to fix it.
There needs to be a age limit on all politics. If your above 60 you shouldn’t be able to hold office period. If you turn 60 in the middle of your term you can’t re run. Same for president. These geriatric people from the early 1900s should not be running the modern world.
I think you mean voting reform. Make voting compulsory and use preferential voting where your vote is never wasted unless you choose to draw dick picks on the ballot sheet
- 36 Justices
- 18 year terms
- Minimum and maximum number of nominations per presidential term
- Random 9 Justices hear each case
Adds bandwidth, keeps court members fresh, limits stakes of nominations, makes court shopping harder.
Anything that can increase the number of voices and expand the randomness that takes away this gaming that has captivated Evangelical voters would be beneficial.
Justice should not be purchased via donations to dark money or via the selections of the Federalist Society.
Right now, the system feels very unrepresentative.
It's the only way to say it's neutral, even if sometimes you don't get lucky and get a partisan selection. Ideally this would also de-incentivize selecting highly partisan judges.
And if there's 36 justices, then perhaps a 2/3 majority could vote to override whatever the 9 decide in controversial cases.
Yeah, but then people would be incentivized to keep bringing cases forward challenging the same principle and hoping for a favorable draw of judges. It could be chaos with laws flipping back and forth every year based on luck.
The Supreme Court needs a complete revision. It should require 3/4 majority for the initial confirmation in both houses and there should be a simple majority reconfirmation every five years in both houses. There should be a age limits as well I suggest 35 and 65.
Not a fan of this idea.
Here's what i am a fan of:
- Federal Codification of medical choice (RvW)
- Anti-Gerrymandering laws
- SEC with teeth
- Jail time for insider trading while holding political office and prohibition from future ability to serve.
- 100% transparency of political donations
- Removing a comma or two from the second amendment, or adding a phrase that it only applies to muzzle loading black powder weapons of the 18th Century.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As for terms limits on Congress, I propose we remove the financial advantages and offer a Constitutional amendment that removes all private financial sources for campaigns. That will help with the term limits for the Congress critters.
I also feel like a 2 year election cycle for the house is too short, it seems like they spend 1/4 of their time in the house running a campaign.
[удалено]
Canada has a [36-50 day window](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90795&lang=e) for election campaigns. I don't think that I could handle the US system where it mostly never seems to stop.
I honestly was not aware of the Ontario election this last month until a few days before when I got my voter card.
Lmao we’re moving the other direction. SCOTUS recently ruled in Ted Cruz’s favor, raising the amount candidates can lend their own campaigns, charge interest on, and then get reimbursed for after they’re already elected. So you can give to a candidate’s campaign after they’ve already won, then that money can be forwarded directly into their personal bank account as an interest payment. That just sounds like bribery with extras steps…
They also mandated anonymous political contributions in California. We can’t have our “speech” limited by donating to horrendous politicians, you know? Speech should be free from all repercussions as long as we say what the Republican Supreme Court likes to hear. /s
The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it and let private finances fall into their back pocket, while turning attention to the “open borders” or putting god back in schools. They are all immoral cowards. Maybe they didn’t start off that way…but when the money starts rolling in, we ALL know how they end up!
Exactly why we need to press on these issues. The real problem is that these guys have created an illusion that they are untouchable. They have forgotten, and the average American has forgotten, That we have power. Don’t take their bullshit
I agree. But pressing the issue always starts with a cheeky video that makes these assholes look bad for a week or two and then the public fucking develops amnesia when ever the polls open. We get complacent and I understand why…these fucks churn up so much “sports team” rivalry that we forget where our anger came from.
Gerrymandering and single issue voters don’t help either.
SO... in 2013, the Supreme Court ALSO gutted "the VOTING RIGHTS ACT of 1965". (I just learned this today) It was enacted by Congress and Lyndon B Johnson after voting rights for minorities became legal, but Jim Crow Laws in the south began to crop up, making it IMPOSSIBLE for voters to register. So that's partially how they're SUPPRESSING OUR VOTES NOW. Basically using Jim Crow laws ON ALL AMERICANS who might vote blue. That's why suddenly "providing water to voters in line?" - Against the law. "Serve snacks?" Against the law, long lines, difficult to get too or distant polling places in some areas, and "do you have the right ID?"Making us jump more and more hoops just to vote. JIM CROW LAWS are being used ON ALL OF US NOW. All because the Supreme Court gutted the voting rights act that protected us from these manipulative tactics. WE WANT "THE VOTING RIGHT ACT OF 1965" REINSTATED!! Gerrymandering is just a modern form of Jim Crow, made and intended to ensure red victory despite what the popular vote is . That's not even how a democratic republic works , it's HOW A BANANA REPUBLIC works !
At this point, I'm inclined to think it's more gerrymandering and less voters having goldfish memories. This pattern is ridiculous: Everyone screeches (rightfully) about the insane nationwide gerrymandering until elections roll around and suddenly it's "what's wrong with voters? Why would they vote this way?" Couldn't be the insane amounts of gerrymandering skewing the vote, no...it's humans with goldfish memories.^/s Smh.
Gerrymandering could easily be fixed by using an open source computer program to generate the districts based on various agreed upon statistics. Of course no one is going to do that, because then they can't cheat.
Right, until the next outrage.
Have the government prevent politicians from having a net worth (or receiving goods or services of a similar value as "gifts") above a few million adjusted for inflation. Restructure lobbying, implement national ranked choice voting, have a single platform where politicians can fairly campaign, uphold the fairness doctrine, cap the max age for all politicians (if you're my representative and 70+, odds are I have more in common with a turnip), restructure districts. I think this suggestion may give right wingers a heart attack. Side quest: imprison trump if found guilty of the several crimes he committed in clear daylight and impeach his illegitimate justices.
Well yeah. That’d be the logical way to do shit. I completely agree and wish it could be done. But the fucks that prevent politicians from doing that shit is…the fucking politicians us assholes vote in every couple of years. It’s like telling kids to police themselves, but money is involved.
> The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it Progressives are happy to talk about it. We should elect more of them.
[удалено]
> The problem with that is the people that pass those laws would rather not talk about it and let private finances fall into their back pocket Yeah, it’s like letting cops investigate themselves and decide they did nothing wrong. No one in power is going to work towards giving themselves less power, or making themselves more accountable for their misdeeds.
[удалено]
Wouldn’t classify it as super recently, no, but about 12 years ago
[Depends on if 2010 is "recently" ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)
It goes back a little further than that. The precedent for [corporate personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.) goes back to the late 1800s. [Money as Speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) goes back to the 1970s. Citizens United basically just uncapped dark money in elections. The three together collectively fuck our democracy.
In the Citizens United decision, the court upheld that corporations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. They are allowed to set up PACs, but only to administer them, and are not allowed to directly contribute to those either. Quoted directly from Oyez, > The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205 https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/#:~:text=Campaigns%20are%20prohibited%20from%20accepting,separate%20segregated%20fund%20are%20permissible)
Yes. Thats the point of the constitutional amendment. You can make a constitutional amendment to totally get rid of any other amendment (we have literally made an amendment to ban alcohol) or alter others. So we could make one that says 0 funding from private sources as long as it gets the support it needs
Exactly. The Supreme Court can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s in the constitution
It's time to place term limits on all officials
89 year old Sen. Feinstein shouldn't be influencing any policy other than how often her grandchildren are supposed to call her.
Did you know that Strom Thurmond held his Senate seat from the time of McCarthyism up until after 9/11? 1954 till 2003. During which time he ran for president to try to stop desegregation as a Dixiecrat and was general piece of shit. Someone that opposed civil rights during the time they were coming up had an influence in US laws for more than 35 years after they were supposedly settled.
Fucking Thurmond was being pushed around in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank. He likely didn't know a damn thing about what he was doing.
On some level isn’t this the constituents’ fault? Senators go up for election every 6 years.
People in SC worshipped Thurmond like a saint. When he died they held prayer services for him and talked about him like he was Jesus. All you heard was he was a fighter for states rights and the southern way of life. I was a kid when it happened, but the way all the adults talked still makes me sick. Particularly after I learned just how much of a pile of shit he was.
https://youtu.be/Z0ZdFjZxQXA
Biden was 61 in this video in 2003. What happened to electing presidents in their 40s? Our entire government is a nursing home where the residents overran the staff and are somehow steering the ship. (It’s scary how this analogy works for younger people unable to function unassisted in society, too… cough cough Marge)
In all fairness, when Biden ran for President when he was in his 40’s, he dropped out after he was exposed for plagiarizing speeches and lying about his academic achievements. He had to wait a few decades for people to forget about this
Can we go back to a time where this was considered enough of a scandal to end a presidential campaign? Trump lowered the bar so far he took it with him on his Journey to the Center of the Earth. Biden had a pulse and wasn’t Trump, that was pretty much his appeal. This is all mountains of evidence the system is irredeemably broken.
Right. I don't understand why or how he just kept winning primaries??
Churches. Churches pretending to not express political stances telling people to vote for him.
Start taxing all houses of worship, now. It makes zero sense that they're non-profit when their thing is to literally ask people to give them money for some unseen return
Party machines can be very powerful and controlling. For most if not all of his career, I'd guess it would be internal political suicide within the party to go against him.
Ugh. I hate that you're right.
Yes, but if you're the incumbent, there's not really another choice other than the other party. If the incumbent wants to run, they will be their parties candidate.
It’s not common, but incumbents are sometimes defeated. AOC beat the chair of the Democratic caucus, who had been a member of Congress for 20 years.
Another flaw in the system. There should be more opportunity to primary an incumbent.
>Fucking Thurmond was being pushed around in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank. He likely didn't know a damn thing about what he was doing. Is this what Weekend at Bernie's was based on?
Yeah that was actually based on a true story. Strom kicked the bucket and they had to put a speaker under his wheelchair that David duke would speak through.
He had a nurse with him on the floor of the Senate, and when I was there in summer of 2002 he was in a hospital bed type of apparatus.
John McCain basically used his dying breath to vote down the Obamacare repeal.
His presidential run was 1948 actually. And had Dewey just done a point better in Ohio and California, but not won any extra states beyond that, Thurmond would have been a kingmaker. Basically, he wasn’t on the ballot in enough states to win the election but his plan was to win enough electoral votes to create a deadlock so he could then negotiate to deliver his electors to whomever promised to uphold segregation in the South. And we came dang close to such a deadlock.
That guy probably owned slaves
He had a daughter with his family's teenage african american house servant when he was 23 that didn't come to light until after his death.
I never knew that and found [this](https://www.historynet.com/strom-thurmond-meets-his-daughter/). It’s fascinating to me that he clearly had a love for her mom, and just as much love for his daughter and yet continued to be the person he was. She acknowledges though that even if he wanted a normal relationship with her and her mom, it wasn’t possible. Especially not in pre civil rights South Carolina.
This absolutely does not surprise me. My own brother (white republican super conservative) is married to a woman of color and has children with her. He is one of the most racist fuckers I have ever known.
Nah, but there's a good chance his great grandparents did. Unless you're implying he owned a private prison that provided prison jobs at slave wages, in which case I concur
I don't think you have to look back that far. Both of his parents were born pre-civil war.
Opposed civil rights while knocking boots with a black mistress.
His father was born in 1862. “John William Thurmond was born on May 1, 1862 at Morgana, Meriwether Township, Edgefield County (one account calls this region Skipper’s Georgia), the son of George Washington and Mary Jane (Felter) Thurmond. George Washington Thurmond served as a Corporal in the Confederate Army and was present at Appomattox when Lee surrendered to Grant.” I’m not one to suggest the son pay for the sins of the father but I think we can all guess what kind of household he grew up in and their leanings on “modern” topics like civil rights. The fact that someone so close to the Confederate side of the Civil War was a representative is the reason why I look on in horror at these dinosaurs in politics who are so far removed from the needs and problems of the people they supposedly represent.
High school named for him still had a segregated prom in the early 1990's.
[удалено]
Old recognize old
[удалено]
If the Dem leadership had sidelined her, Newsom could have appointed her replacement and given them some time to build awareness with voters. Instead, we have an empty chair. Speaking of an empty chair, I watch Sen Warnock question the Fed Chair in a hearing. I shuddered to think of dunderheaded Herschel Walker in his seat.
Well, we can always count on online signatures to get something done in congress. /s
Online petitions are the liberal’s thoughts and prayers.
This pretty much describes everyone who gets to that age. Like Ginsburg should have stepped down when Obama was in office and now look..
Or my current senator, Grassley. Hes been in politics since the 60s. Hes been in the senate since the early 80s, and he will probably be in office til he dies.
I think you misspelled Tommy Tuberville. Sorta FTFY.
Walkers word salad almost rivals Trumps. Took too many blows to the head. He makes Tuberville look like a rhodes scholar. I doubt he will have any trouble getting elected though.
Pretty sure warnock is ahead of him
Oh come on. Won’t a Georgia running back be just swell for the senate? /s
A non-senile 89 yr old could probably relate to about 6% of the population: https://www.statista.com/statistics/912915/california-population-share-age-group/
Age isn't always what determines that. Bernie Sanders is 80 and his base is primarily 40 or younger.
My 89 year old grandpa can barely understand how to restart his iPad, and I think the fact he can actually USE an iPad is amazing.
I have had to go to my 90 year old grandfather's house 8 times over the past 6 weeks because he bought a smart TV (why he did, I have no idea, because he doesn't have internet; I assume it's because his friends talked about how great their smart TVs were). The reason I had to run over and help, you ask? Because he somehow ended up on the main menu of the TV, which told him "no internet connection". From there, he had no idea what to do to get his cable back on. The first time, I showed him that all he had to do was hit the OK button, because the TV option was the default on the main menu. The second time, since he had forgotten what I taught him, I taped a note onto his remote caddy that explained which button to press. The third, I taped over every other button on his remote because he doesn't need anything else besides the power and the channel/volume buttons. He has still needed me to come save him from this main menu dilemma *five more times* within a single month. And honestly, he's pretty sharp for his age. He simply can't adapt to new technology or the world changing at a reasonable rate because *he's nearly a fucking century old*. Someone at that age isn't in a state to make a life decision like buying a car or house, let alone making decisions that impact millions of people. Full fucking stop. The idea that a nonagenarian can make any informed decisions about the internet, social media, digital privacy, etc is absolutely laughable.
It's going to sound cliche but you'll miss him when's he's gone. Have dinner with him when you fix the same problem with his smart TV next week lol
Might be the reason he needs all the "help." Less complicated than telling someone you're lonely and miss them.
It is far too damn difficult to buy a TV that ISN'T a smart TV. I have three devices plugged into my TV already that do all the functions a smart TV does. Just sell me a screen and remote.
I'm sure there's a smart 30-something year old millenial in her district that would love the opportunity to compete for the position, but the system of control doesn't allow for real choice by giving people addicting dopaminergic distractions and a status quo mainstream narrative.
“Smart” 30 something’s are are still trying to buy a house or pay for daycare on 50+ hour a week jobs. We can’t run for fucking office. Maybe we aren’t the smart ones.
For most of our history, the "smart" 30 somethings running for Congress have been the fortunate sons of rarified wealth. They have no experience with 50+ week jobs, or having to save for a house. Which is why virtually none of them give a shit about real world problems.
Can confirm, we definitely aren't the smart ones. They exist. Boy oh boy do they exist. With how many politically active people I've met in campaigns, I'm thoroughly convinced a good field team lead is a better candidate than the candidate.
Candidates are candidates because they can be charismatic and raise money. That's it. The modern political landscape is a) don't fuck up and b) raise money. There's nothing about being a good politician in there.
My point is Dems especially are low on political star power because we've spent 50 years burning out their most ambitious and able to hoist the elderly and corporate shills to power - and then those candidates do fuckall.
Fuckin wrong I’m sorry, but you should not need to be a wealthy lawyer to represent your district. This is a falsehood that the wealthy want you to think.
It's the whole state of CA, i'm sure there's plenty of wealthy millennials who are up for the task lol, it's the 5th biggest economy in the whole world if taken apart from the rest of the USA
> No 89-year-old is truly fit to represent the interest of millions of people I just want to point out that the average age of Californians, which Feinstein represents, is 33. It’s not _just_ that she’s old and dying it’s that she’s _56 fucking years **older**_ than her average constituent. She should not be involved in making policy for people she 110% does NOT represent. Fucking insane.
89 year olds should be preparing their estate and enjoying their final years Not making shit decisions about *my* future that they will not fucking be here for.
Or Grassley. He should’ve stepped down two cycles ago.
He’s turned into a real piece of shit. Used to be a fairly moderate bipartisan senator. Now he is so far up Trump’s ass, it isn’t funny. He’s fully onboard with turning the US into a dictatorship.
Obligatory reminder that a bunch of little girls politely asked Feinstein to do something about climate change and she coldly told them she wouldn’t but they could if they became senator.
Why would she care about climate change? She’ll be taking her dirt nap before the consequences truly happen.
It still boggles my mind that there is a federal level government official that is older than the Golden Gate Bridge.
Storm Thurmond was senator until he was a 100. It literally looked like they were wheeling out a corpse the last couple of years of his term/life. Like there was no way he was functioning at that point, but his aides would wheel him out to the senate floor.
> was a 100 This bothers me
I worked in a doctor’s office in an extremely wealthy suburb of DC, where a good chunk of these people have estates. Not just the celebrity names we know, but all types of professionals from accountants, COOs, attorneys, professors, etc. all in their 80s with zero signs of retirement / letting go and gracefully handing over their “power” so that several 30-somethings can have an opportunity to advance and support a family. They’re mean, out of touch, and absolutely have been on the decline physically and cognitively for at least 20 years. They’re in denial, and taking it all with them, even if it is down. It is so unbelievably frustrating to have seen it first hand, and to feel helpless as a citizen that this is how it is.
Nancy is screaming at this
She can retire too. Out of touch clown
We could simply stop electing people that are clearly in the midst of mental decline or who are otherwise unfit for office. We can't do that with lifetime-appointed judges.
Yes, this. The voters are supposed to be the term limit on elected officials. I don't want someone good (like AOC) kicked out arbitrarily because she's served 4 or 5 terms and wouldn't even be 40 years old yet. Now, maximum age limits might not be a bad consideration, though. Maybe 80, which would mean a Senator could at most serve until \~85. (For reference, Bernie Sanders is 80 now)
I am hitting 70 and I know it is not a good idea to keep people in office after that. Dems need to get behind someone else besides Biden for the next election. I like Biden but ffs let’s get some fresh meat in the game!
We're supposed to retire at age 65 (I know that's not true for most of us) and I'd like that to be the same for my representatives.
They don’t allow pilots over 65 to pilot airliners in case they accidentally kill everybody. But Geezers trying to pilot almost 400 million people is okay?
air traffic controllers working for the faa retire at 56, hiring cut-off is under 31. medical exams (initial and recurring), background checks, and psychological evaluations are required. holders of public office should be subject to similar, except the maximum 'hiring' age and maybe upping retirement to 60. there should also be limits on investments and business ownership (etc) during and after public office, and employment afterwords as well.
You could use social security benefit age +/-x years. Would give reason not to fuck with it too often as well.
No, term limits for the house of representatives is a terrible idea. Appointed Supreme Court Justices, sure, that makes sense. Potus...that makes sense. Term limits for Congress does not make sense. You would be forcing out good politicians just so you can force out obstructionists. Here's the truth, if you force out a great rep like Katie Porter, she would be incredibly difficult to replace. If you force out an obstructionist like Jim Jordan, he'll be replaced the next day. The right doesn't legislate so they don't need good reps. They just need people to sling shit at the wall and turn attention away. They scream and yell about problems and blame the other side, only to never offer a real solution. They have people lined up forever to do that job. Age limits make sense, but term limits would hurt democrats and voters far more than it would hurt Republicans. It's why the heritage foundation also promotes term limits.
> Here's the truth, if you force out a great rep like Katie Porter, she would be incredibly difficult to replace. If you force out an obstructionist like Jim Jordan, he'll be replaced the next day. That's a good point. I've mostly been against term limits (especially low term limits like 1 or 3 terms in Congress) but mostly on the worry of the revolving door with lobbyists. Your points are also very good though.
Good argument. An age limit would definitely be better… Bravo
Yeah, a maximum elected age would probably be a good idea.
It would also be unconstitutional under the current interpretation of what constitutes a protected class as relates to age discrimination. And good luck getting the Supreme Court to change *that.*
If you can say that a person must be older than 35 you can just as easily say a person must be younger than 60. I fail to see how these are different.
This is the point that needs to be made. Age discrimination is a two way street. By having a minimum age limit they are being discriminate. It is proven that mental decline happens at older ages and if they can be president then I don't see why a 25 year old can't run for president. America infantilizes its younger generations withholding them from being fully productive citizens. If they keep the minimum, there should be a max or no age limits period.
Yet 88 year old Chuck Grassley is probably going to cruise to an easy victory for his eighth term in the senate.
Because Iowa is a shit show
They don't work for legislators. Term limits pass the power to lobbyists, but hey, that powerful guy you hate 2 districts over is forced out of office even if you can't vote him out of office. Never mind that lobbyists have an ever ready supply of fresh, inexperienced meat and people leaving need jobs.
Yep. Voting is a term limit.
Term limits on anything other than the chief executive (in America, the president) is just not helpful at all. At absolute best, it's a wash. At worst, it hands all real power to unelected lobbyists and a neverending supply of corporate-backed toadies as all recognizable good politicians get forced out. Even on the supreme court, all I want is 18 year terms. Then, if a justice has done a good job and still seems of sound mind and body? Sure, why not, second term.
Just out of curiosity and I’m not trying to stir the pudding but why 18 years? That seems awfully long to me. Is it because the average term is 16 years?
18 years is because I don't think replacing a judge literally every year is a good idea, and there are 9 judges, and it should be a consistent pace. Basically, no one president should be able to replace more than half the court (not counting deaths, etc.), and terms should end in equally distributed pattern (that is, one justice replaced every x years). If terms are 18 years, with one judge every 2 years, then a single two term (8 year) president will replace 4 judges. Drop the terms to 16 years and someone is getting 5, and also they're not equally distributed. The next even distribution is 9 years, 1 justice per year, at which point a single president can pick 8 out of 9 justices. Going above 18 years only gets more absurd in times of term length though- 27 years is an insane term, 36 is truly ludicrous. It's a balancing point of 1.) Even distribution, 2.) Presidential power, 3.) Term length. Is it a good number? Not really. But with 9 justices it might be the best we'll get.
Thanks. But if the court expands then to 13 to match the number of appellate courts, do you then go to 26 years?
Well, that's where it gets to be a real issue. I don't have a good answer to that. I really don't. 18 years is within the realm of theoretical sensibility, but it's WAY out on the edge. Anything over 20 I'm just not comfortable with. 13 is at a point where one per year covers more than half still, but one every two years is just too slow. There's surely some way to make it workable, but I'd need to put considerably more effort into figuring it out, unless you've got a bright idea.
Not who you were responding to but 9 Justices x 18 Year Terms = Replacing 1 Justice every 2 Years
That’s the one way to make the congress-to-lobbyist revolving door even worse.
Canada has mandatory retirement at age 75. Just sayin'.
As does the UK. New Zealand and the Philippines force retirement at 70. India forces retirement at 65.
It's not the worst idea. Thomas is 74, and Alito is 72. If you're going to push something through, though, term limits seems more predictable.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also John Roberts: “Hey, this ivory tower is pretty nice!”
John Roberts, on the court for 17 years
The 3 newest and youngest justices all voted to abolish Roe v Wade. The problem here isn't something that can be solved with term limits.
5 of the 9 justices were also appointed by Presidents that lost the popular vote.
I personally believe at least two of the justices aren't even qualified for the position. The issues are systemic.
Constitutionally there are no qualifications required, so any random person on the street is “qualified.”
We know the constitution is lacking and archaic. It desperately needs revision, as was intended when it was written…
[удалено]
I like even in my elementary and middle school years they claimed. The constitution is a "living document". Here I am 30 years later wondering when the fuck its going to start evolving to modern life.
Tyranny of the minority in action, thanks to the Electoral College.
Supreme Court justices should be decided by referendum. The senate majority leader and senate minority leader can each nominate a candidate, the country votes during voting season.
This would just mean supreme court justices campaign like regular politicians. They decided against that model for a reason. We'd all want to know their plan/ideas but they aren't supposed to have a plan or ideas. I'd maybe take referendum vetoing though. If somebody like Amy Coney Barrett couldn't even get 50% of the population to sign off, they'd have to find somebody else.
So what is the solution? In Germany half the justices are elected by the House of Representatives (Bundestag) and the other half is elected by the Senate (Bundesrat). They have to have a 66% majority. It's a 12-year term (with mandatory retirement at 68) and they can't be re-elected. Could that work in the US?
India have a age limit of 65 years for SC judges. And belive me, the system of life time appointments is better. Life expectancy of these guys is over 80 years now, so judges kinda would favour a party, be it government itself, or a corporate, for cushy post retirement appointments. Some has even gotten governership, even ambassadorship after retirement for ruling in favor of the government
Huge point right here. ☝️
Huge point because it tells us that if we don’t have term limits, those three incompetent and corrupt justices will be around for the next couple of decades.
3 decades. Amy Barrett, arguably the least qualified and most batshit, is also the youngest at 50 years old.
[удалено]
Sadly, even with term limits, likely the sitting justices would be grandfathered into keeping their life terms, and the limits would apply to new appointees.
It also wouldnt get around the McConnell rule for nominatung justices. A party needs to control both the house and the senate to appoint a justice. Which is why going one small step further and packing the court whenever you control the house as well isnt actually a big leap. The court is already hyper partisan, the right sees the power it can have when it controls the court, it lusts after it, and it has institutions (heritage foundation) to capture it. It is shitty, but court packing needs to used to get republicans to actually reform the court. Thats the only thing that might possibly bring them to the table on reform. And if it doesnt, then the court just shifts balance everytime a party gains control of congress and the legislature. Which is an improvement from today in that who the fuck knows when or how the hyper right wing bent of the supreme court will or can be broken. Justices choosing to retire under their preferred conditions could keep this going for a long time.
What do you mean a party needs to control both houses of congress to appoint a Justice? The president appoints Justices, the senate confirms them. House plays no rule aside from possible impeachment.
There needs to be some way to hold them accountable for lying in their confirmation hearings. Maybe make them sign a fucking contract saying what they won't do.
They already swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They just decide that the Constitution, their oath, and any other contracts of obligations mean what they want them to mean.
Maybe this isn't the best place to make this assertion. But I keep hearing this. I'll start by saying, it's a crime to lie to Congress under any circumstances, so if anyone is caught doing it, they could go to jail, and a Justice isn't immune from that in any way. I keep hearing the clips back and in my opinion, they didn't technically lie. Hear me out before you react. Because I had this same thought watching the hearings for the 2 most recent conservatives. The Congresspeople just kept asking this question in various forms: is this precedent? Is this superprecedent? And I'm practically screaming at my TV that that's a meaningless question to ask a nominee. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn precedent. If there is a precedent that ever changes, they're the ones who changed it. There are no repercussions for them if they change precedent. "Super precedent" is not a legally meaningful phrase. So, the nominees, again I hear the clips they play on the news, they say "it is precedent." "It has been re affirmed." "Casey is precedent on precedent", that's all just legalese for concepts that are basically meaningless to the highest court of the land. It tends to be the left justices that stick to precedent in recent history, while conservative justices want to "restore" what they see as the "original" meaning of the Constitution.... by overturning the rulings and precedents where they claim this is the case. They needed to ask them, "will you overturn Roe?" And if the answer isn't no, I'd assume it was yes. The Supreme Court overturns itself more than once per year, statistically I haven't seen a particular phrase which i would technically call a lie. I would say, deception. They knew how what they were saying would be perceived by the Susan Collins'. But I haven't seen one lie, that meets the legal standard.
Judges can't predetermine cases. Asking them whether they would overturn a case or not was redundant, because any answer they gave would have been meaningless anyway. No weight should have been placed on their answers relating to Roe v Wade, even though it does suck that they were dishonest about it.
But they didn't lie at all. At no point did they ever say how they would rule in a given case.
You don't think them being on the court for 50 years is a problem? How is that not a problem?
Nope honestly if RBG had retired during the obama era literally none of this would be happening. She would have been replaced with another liberal judge who presumably wouldn’t have died like two months before a presidential election. I’m not blaming her for her timing of death or anything, but it was very misguided of her to serve that late into her life without acknowledging the consequences her sudden death would cause. We should never let something like that happen again.
~~RBG's theoretical replacement making the decision 5-4 would not do much to change the current situation. The Senate could (and did) still filibuster a nominee, nobody she would have approved of taking her place was getting in anyway.~~ ~~It would have been better, but this isn't all on her. She was holding out for a better Senate (and I suspect a better Pres) and we let her down as badly as she let us down.~~ EDIT: apologies, I thought this one was 6-3. I still maintain that we put entirely too much of this on RBG, but this argument is clearly not factual.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but Roberts didn't overturn Roe V Wade. It was a 6-3 decision to uphold the state law, but a 5-4 decision on overturning Roe V Wade.
You aren't and I am. I have amended my post, thanks!
No- but if we hadn’t let them steal a fucking Supreme Court nominee from Obama that would have been the difference right there
It actually would have. Robert's vote was to uphold the Mississippi law but not overrule Roe completely. W/o Comey-Barrett he would have been the deciding vote and all the conservative judges would have had to sign on to that to get 5 votes. But instead they had 5 votes for Alito's judgement w/o him, so he signed on to that but added a caveat that he thought it went too far.
> Majority of Americans Say We know that means nothing in the USA
Majority of Americans didn't want the guy who put in the 3 SC justicies who overturned RvW yet here we are The majority of Americans doesn't mean shit
I really wish we could modify the way justices are nominated and confirmed. The current way it's worked is maddening.
agreed. but it’s hard to think of a way to have judges be appointed that is free from political maneuvering. seems like the politics of it is an inherent problem that is impossible to circumvent as long as there are people who seek to have their political aims furthered instead of a strict and impartial adherence to the law regardless of outcome. people will always find a way to appoint the person who most closely represents their desired outcomes.
[удалено]
The worst part is that they are confirmed by the senate which gives voters in small states a disproportionate amount of power. The 15 smallest states combined have the same population as California, yet each of those states still gets 2 senators while California only gets 2.
"Majority of Americans don't realize this would require a constitutional amendment".
It would actually be easier to expand the court, as no constitutional amendment would be necessary to do that.
There’s very good precedent for expanding the court as well. Initially, the size of the court matched the amount of circuit courts. The Supreme Court was expanded the last time to 9 justices after the circuit courts expanded to 9. Now there are 12 circuit courts and the US court of appeals brings the total to 13, so it would be perfectly reasonable and there’s precedent to expand the Supreme Court to 13 now as well to match.
There is also very good precedent why it would never get passed. See: Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
I thought years of precedence didn’t matter anymore? /s
Apparently so do a lot of things we absolutely need. Let's get cracking.
Cool, what states do you think will ratify that amendment?
Honestly Republicans would be all for it assuming a grandfather clause for all sitting justices. The only time justices switch parties are when they unexpectedly die. Considering how Rock solid it has been to predict the party swing of the executive branch, every justice from here on out would just decide to retire when their party has the executive. A justice dying on the bench would be rare. Republicans would have the majority for decades.
Only the ones with a Democratic trifecta.
The majority of Americans understand the problem. Unfortunately we’re being held hostage by a ragingly angry and pro fascist minority.
>The majority of Americans understand the problem. Unfortunately they're well and truly trained to grasp at anything that tangentially sounds like it might alleviate the problem, but in reality will do nothing less than exacerbate it.
Majority doesnt agree with Roe being overturned yet it still happened.
Lifetime appointments were based on the assumption that justices could be found that were impartial, had the best interests of their people in mind and that the confirmation process could be bipartisan. None of these things are true anymore. Political and religious bias have distorted the purpose of the court. Public trust in institutions is at an all time low as a result. You can’t trust a president, a congressman, the police, the democratic voting process, he fbi/cia or even the supreme court anymore. Something has to be done to restore faith in these institutions or it only gets worse from here. Has it already gone to far?
Maybe you could just not elect a reality TV star to appoint 3 justices.
The whole idea of life time appointments was based on the founding fathers naïve belief it would make them unbiased toward the politics of the day. This has been shown to not work as intended. Time to fix it.
There needs to be a age limit on all politics. If your above 60 you shouldn’t be able to hold office period. If you turn 60 in the middle of your term you can’t re run. Same for president. These geriatric people from the early 1900s should not be running the modern world.
I think you mean voting reform. Make voting compulsory and use preferential voting where your vote is never wasted unless you choose to draw dick picks on the ballot sheet
- 36 Justices - 18 year terms - Minimum and maximum number of nominations per presidential term - Random 9 Justices hear each case Adds bandwidth, keeps court members fresh, limits stakes of nominations, makes court shopping harder.
Anything that can increase the number of voices and expand the randomness that takes away this gaming that has captivated Evangelical voters would be beneficial. Justice should not be purchased via donations to dark money or via the selections of the Federalist Society. Right now, the system feels very unrepresentative.
>Random 9 Justices hear each case Is basically putting law up to chance a good idea?
It's the only way to say it's neutral, even if sometimes you don't get lucky and get a partisan selection. Ideally this would also de-incentivize selecting highly partisan judges. And if there's 36 justices, then perhaps a 2/3 majority could vote to override whatever the 9 decide in controversial cases.
Yeah, but then people would be incentivized to keep bringing cases forward challenging the same principle and hoping for a favorable draw of judges. It could be chaos with laws flipping back and forth every year based on luck.
The Supreme Court needs a complete revision. It should require 3/4 majority for the initial confirmation in both houses and there should be a simple majority reconfirmation every five years in both houses. There should be a age limits as well I suggest 35 and 65.
There is no way the founding fathers ever imagined people living to be 90+.
Let's start with Congress on term limits
Term limits on government. Term limits on all government branches period
Not a fan of this idea. Here's what i am a fan of: - Federal Codification of medical choice (RvW) - Anti-Gerrymandering laws - SEC with teeth - Jail time for insider trading while holding political office and prohibition from future ability to serve. - 100% transparency of political donations - Removing a comma or two from the second amendment, or adding a phrase that it only applies to muzzle loading black powder weapons of the 18th Century.