In the aftermath of a significant SCOTUS win for Dems, it is again time to consider . . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . . whether or not the Supremes ought to be lifetime appointments.

I think they ought to have a term limit and, once they've served, be barred from serving a second appointment. Ten years seems a reasonable term.

On a related note, I will bet money that Roberts voted as he did out of a fear that **HIS** court would be seen as dysfunctional and politically biased if it turned out to be just another 5-4 party line vote. If true, is that not a political vote?

[bigwillq]

1. I support term limits for SCOTUS members

I do for elected officials too, but I guess that's why they have elections. I do, though, feel that some politicians really serve longer than they probably should.

[villager]

2. absolutely -- term limits for Supremes. Maybe 15 years?

I'm thinking they should have enough time to preside past the current political cycles, but this gaming the lifetime appointment thing by rightwingers, to insure rigid ideological compliance for a couple of generations or more, has got to stop...

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I think 10 years is enough for them.

But yeah. You're right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. I'm not sure about term limits. But I support a super majority for confirmation.

I.e. 66 percent of the vote.

That would probably help dissuade the notion of a partisan court, at least to some extent.