Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:
Course, that's the reason term limits would be just as dangerous, if not more. I mean, imagine if all those appointment cooldowns popped over the course of one president's reign. No president should have that kind of control over the Supremes.

I wonder if a system where the longest serving Justice retires in each presidential period might work? So Bush wins in 2000, and the longest serving justice retires and Bush appoints someone new, then Bush wins his second term, the longest serving Justice retires and Bush appoints another, then Obama wins his first term, the longest serving Justice retires and Obama appoints his first and so on.

Meh you act like Scotus is bad. Its not. Congress could fix that easily if it wanted to, but its nice to campaign on and they don't seem to act even attept to fix anything any more.


For example: the corporate thing where corporations are people.

Simply pass a federal eliminating the current corp and replace it with a new body that is a separate legal entity only for tax and liability purposes. Boom, done.

 Frazzled wrote:
Meh you act like Scotus is bad. Its not. Congress could fix that easily if it wanted to, but its nice to campaign on and they don't seem to act even attept to fix anything any more.


For example: the corporate thing where corporations are people.

Simply pass a federal eliminating the current corp and replace it with a new body that is a separate legal entity only for tax and liability purposes. Boom, done.

Congress'ing is hard... dontcha know.

Or... Congress can actually impeach/remove Justices too. That mechanism as always existed.

 sebster wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Course, that's the reason term limits would be just as dangerous, if not more. I mean, imagine if all those appointment cooldowns popped over the course of one president's reign. No president should have that kind of control over the Supremes.

I wonder if a system where the longest serving Justice retires in each presidential period might work? So Bush wins in 2000, and the longest serving justice retires and Bush appoints someone new, then Bush wins his second term, the longest serving Justice retires and Bush appoints another, then Obama wins his first term, the longest serving Justice retires and Obama appoints his first and so on.

I really think an annual "fitness for duty" evaluation would the way to go. It would avoid ageism and partisanship, as it would be done to every Justice every year, and would respect the fact that some people lose their cognitive capabilies relatively young, while others go on to quite an old age with their faculties fully intact.

Impeaching justices is currently beyond the capabilities of a congress that no longer seems able to agree on a budget, laws or even the time of day.