Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

sir pball

(4,741 posts)

19. Don't disagree, but they'd all be protecting their cushy jobs not ruling on the law

Reply to Polybius (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 28, 2022, 08:49 AM

Jul 2022

I don't see it being unconstitutional, as they do retain their Offices as per ArtIII - they're just on a different bench. OF course, 1. IANAL and 2. any Justice would be an idiot to not strike this down, why would you vote in favor of losing your job? Yes yes, they'd still be Justices and get paid but they'd have no influence and power, and humans love influence and power more than money even.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices [View all] brooklynite Jul 2022 OP

Like the idea, but I think 18 years is too long. ificandream Jul 2022 #1

Clarence has served long enough at 31 years IronLionZion Jul 2022 #2

I think spending time with his "family" ToxMarz Jul 2022 #3

They can both go to prison IronLionZion Jul 2022 #4

Need to reduce their pension too. LiberalFighter Jul 2022 #5

That pesky Constitution strikes again... brooklynite Jul 2022 #6

Could be interpreted as it only applies while they are still serving on the court. LiberalFighter Jul 2022 #7

If you read the article, Justices would move to Senior Status, but receive full salary. brooklynite Jul 2022 #9

They would still be serving on the Court, that's how this law passes Constitutional muster. sir pball Jul 2022 #17

Well at least "good behavior" is vague enough bucolic_frolic Jul 2022 #8

But the only solution for "bad behavior" is Impeachment and Conviction. brooklynite Jul 2022 #10

The Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Dysfunctional Jul 2022 #11

Can't say I'd blame them Polybius Jul 2022 #12

Don't disagree, but they'd all be protecting their cushy jobs not ruling on the law sir pball Jul 2022 #19

Why try and pass something that they know will get struck down? Polybius Jul 2022 #13

how many... myohmy2 Jul 2022 #14

Just expand the court at that point. NYC Liberal Jul 2022 #15

This is too convoluted. Make it simple... Mawspam2 Jul 2022 #16

It has to be convoluted to work around Article III sir pball Jul 2022 #18

Congress can legislate which court handles which case Dorn Jul 2022 #20