There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Biden calls for supreme court reforms including 18-year justice term limits

President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter

Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US Supreme Court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.

In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.

The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.

OldWoodFrame ,

Anyone know where 18 years came from? 3 appointments per Senate term? 9 Congressional terms for 9 justices? 4.5 presidential terms?

One would think you’d want it to be an even number of presidential terms, so every president gets one appointment per term or whatever. Otherwise you open yourself up to Garland-esque shenanigans by the Senate.

Bumblefumble ,

Because there are 9 justices, so there would be a new appointment every 2 years, giving every presidential term two appointments. So it will exactly avoid all that shit this way.

Hemi03 ,

Do it Pussy

dhork , (edited )

The problem is that doing any of these things in a matter which will stick will require amendments, because that is the only process that this compromised Supreme Court might respect. (And even that is not a given: I wouldn’t put it past them to say that any amendment not passed by a Founding Father is invalid, or something).

So the first thing that needs to be done is to “pack” the court. (I prefer the term “unfuck”, but that is less PC). This can only be done if Democrats take the Presidency and both houses of Congres, and nuke the filibuster. But it’s that important. Dial the fucker up to 13, then go to Republicans and say “OK, now we need to work to fix the courts together. You can decline, but if you do you will watch Momala appoint 4 additional justices under the old rules, to lifetime terms, and bank on getting your own trifecta to re-fuck the Court”.

While we have the amendment process open, we also need to set a limit to how long Congress can deliberate on any appointment, not just SC. Once a President makes an appointment, the Senate shouldn’t be able to sit on it indefinitely. It should be guaranteed to get a vote in the full Senate within X legislative days. The Senate can vote it down, of course, but then the President can nominate someone else. Republican Senators challenged Obama to make a centrist pick for the SC, and he did. Mitch and Lindsey sat on it for months because they knew that it would pass if it went to the full Senate. This process basically gives the Senate Leader a veto over both the President and the will of the overall Senate, and cannot be what the Founders intended.

cyborganism ,

As a non-American, what does it mean to “nuke the filibuster”?

Leeks ,

One of the ways to stall a bill is to talk about it forever. Here’s the wiki explaining it.

Technically speaking the filibuster is only acceptable because the rules of congress allow them, but the rules are changed and Agreed on by all members every year. So “nuke the filibuster” would mean to disallow it in the procedural rules of congress.

dhork ,

The US Senate only has 100 members (2 per state), and since the body is so small they pride themselves on not limiting debates there. But at some point they do need to decide to progress to a vote, and to do that someone makes a “cloture” motion to close debate on that issue and proceed to a vote. In the US Senate, a cloture motion needs 60 votes to pass.

What this means is that if a minority wants to kill a bill, all they need to do is maintain 41 votes against ending debate. It can never proceed to a vote, then, even if more than 50 Senators are in favor. This is what we call a fillibuster: when enough Senators prevent a measure from being voted on.

This filibuster is just a Senate rule, though, and can be removed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. In the current Democratic majority, though, there were just enough Senators who didn’t want to nuke the rule to keep it in place. They are leaving, though, so if Democrats retain the Senate they will probably have the votes to change the rule.

The drawback is that someday, Republicans will take back the Senate, and if there is no filibuster Democrats in the Minority will have lost a key tool to gum up a Republican majority. But the SC is more important than all that. We need to reform the court ASAP, no matter the political cost.

Steve , (edited )

Remove it as an an option.

Right now, any one senator can stop a vote on any bill by announcing they filibuster it.
That used to (decades ago) require them to stand and talk as long as they were able, to delay voting on the bill.
Now without the “talking filibuster” requirement, it becomes trivially easy for any senator to stop anything they don’t like.

A filibuster can be broken, and a vote can be forced to happen, if 60 of the 100 senators agree to it.
That almost never happens, as no one party ever gets a 60 seat “super-majority”.

Removing the filibuster will allow most any bill to pass with a standard 51% majority.
Stopping the minority party from blocking everything they don’t like.

The rules of the Senate itself can be changed with with a simple 51% majority, since they aren’t Laws that govern the land.
So it is possible to eliminate the filibuster without requiring a filibuster breaking super-majority.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

The trick with an amendment is even if you get the House and Senate, you still face ratification from the states.

So 38 out of 50 state legislatures need to ratify the amendment.

To put that in perspective… in 2020, Biden and Trump split the states evenly. 25/25, Biden also took D.C.

To get to 38, you’d need ALL 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

Even getting all 25 Biden states isn’t guaranteed because of those, 6 have Republican controlled state houses.

So now you’re looking at needing as many as 19 Trump states?

dhork ,

Exactly. The path to an amendment is super difficult, and Conservative states have no incentive to do so while they have so thoroughly captured the Supreme Court. That’s why you pack the Court first. Appoint 4 liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments, and you will see much more of a push from those Conservative states for reforms.

psycho_driver ,

Momala. haha, love it.

Boozilla ,
@Boozilla@lemmy.world avatar

18 years is too long, IMO. That’s 4.5 presidential terms. 10 makes more sense to me. But I’ll be happy if they can get anything done re: SCOTUS scum.

Carrolade , (edited )

You want it to be long enough to retain some of the advantages of lifetime appointments. It wasn’t originally framed that way just for fun or convenience, it does have importance.

We also need to make sure they don’t need to go job hunting after their term limit is up, as that would incentivize corruption. They should retain their salary for life.

edit: Reading another comment in here, perhaps its important to note that the main advantage of the lifetime appointment is it allows Justices to be fearless. They can challenge the most powerful people in the entire country, because for their whole lifetime they need nothing more than their current job, which is guaranteed.

grte ,

Yeah, so the lifetime appointment thing is true right now and it turns out enables corruption. Perhaps the original justifications behind lifetime appointments were just, in fact, bad?

Carrolade ,

More that something like corruption is impossible to completely prevent. So you just try to make it harder by reducing incentives. We can’t get to “perfect” in a world with humans in it, but “better” is a realistically attainable achievement.

grte ,

Okay, but it’s not being prevented at all. The current system incentivizes corruption because, clearly, it is practically impossible to do anything about justices who have succumbed to that corruption. So within the context of an environment where billionaires can dump limitless money on a justice and the constituents of that justice can do nothing at all to recall them or even really reprimand them in any way, how is that not asking for corruption to happen?

Carrolade ,

There actually is a method provided for justice removal, it just takes Congress, which also features corruption unfortunately. Also, just because there is some corruption evident does not mean it is not being prevented at all. Are all 9 corrupt? That would eventually happen if it was not prevented at all.

Importantly though, short term limits would also not prevent corruption, and would probably increase it, as Justices would become much more interested in joining businesses and lobbying organizations after their tenures are up. Hence, a middle ground is probably smarter.

Boozilla ,
@Boozilla@lemmy.world avatar

We don’t need “fearless” justices we need justices who respect neutrality and understand that no one is above the law, including them.

Carrolade ,

If you can think of a good way to guarantee that in a world where people can lie, I’m all ears.

MagicShel , (edited )

I’m for the changes, but I’m skeptical about whether anything can be accomplished. If the SC changes aren’t done as an amendment, they’ll be subject to SC review. Getting anything past either of those bars seems nigh impossible.

Similarly, if the SC rules that presidential immunity is implied in the constitution, they could also block that without an amendment.

Maybe the plan isn’t to succeed but just to establish a record that Republican lawmakers are good with a supreme executive and corrupt courts, but I sort of feel like they’ve all but said that aloud anyway.

ETA:

But while we’re on the subject of changing things, I wonder about after an 18 year term is up, if there would be any use for a sort of Justice Emeritus who doesn’t get a vote, but can write concurring/dissenting opinions and maybe serve in either an advisory or ethics review capacity. So keep the lifetime appointment with all the advantages of that, but allow for the actual sitting court to change more over time. I don’t know; I haven’t really fleshed out the idea because it’s a pipe dream at this point.

disguy_ovahea ,

Getting them on record could aid in impeachment. That would require congressional majority, but would also get Congress on record.

This may be more about exposure and transparency than success.

Shawdow194 , (edited )
@Shawdow194@kbin.run avatar

I want to first point out term limits are necessary and I think we need more term limits!

However 18yrs does seem just a bit too short, maybe closer to 24 or 30yr so it can span an entire "normal" career length.
Keep in mind the idea of these lifetime appointments is so you dont spend years of college and your youth learning boring law stuff only to be able to keep a job for a few years. Imagine going to college, training in law for years, only to know after 18yrs you will have to go back to regular attorney work

Having guaranteed career tenures is solely there to incentivize younger people to become a justice

Shawdow194 ,
@Shawdow194@kbin.run avatar

And to clarify our justices know this and have taken advantage of the system. So change IS needed to modernize the judicial branch

Education is easier and more accessible now than ever before. And you dont really need to pass bar or have law degree to be a justice

ChonkyOwlbear ,

There is no saying they couldn’t go down to district court level and continue to serve. It would also be possible to make a solid living getting paid to do speeches at various schools and institutions.

dhork ,

They could also be able to step in to hear individual cases if a justice has to recuse due to a conflict, or if there is a vacancy due to some other reason.

SlippiHUD ,
@SlippiHUD@lemmy.world avatar

The supreme court is a position you normally get nominated to after years of service in the Judicial Service, they should already have 10-15 years as a judge or law professor. That should get them to retirement age.

cheese_greater ,

Did Thomas even serve as a judge before he was the token nomination?

SlippiHUD ,
@SlippiHUD@lemmy.world avatar

For 19 months, he also had chaired the EEOC for 9 years before that, after working in the Department of Education for 1 year.

He’s quite possibly had the fastest tracked career I’ve ever looked into. Every fast tracked career advancement he’s had has been at the hands of republicans.

TheEntity ,

So they would have it just like everybody else? What’s wrong with that?

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Nobody goes from college to SCOTUS, and the whole point is to have turnover so they don’t clog up the highest court for a quarter century.

Hell, they could argue cases in front of SCOTUS after serving!

TowardsTheFuture ,

You uh, do know you don’t just graduate and become a Supreme Court justice, right?

You also know most graduates change jobs in 2 years because they are basically forced to if they want to be paid.

47-55 seems to be pretty normal age to be appointed to Supreme Court. 18 years there puts you at retirement age. The youngest ever (32) would end at 50. For someone who gets there so young retiring early or doing whatever the fuck you want after sounds fine. Plus apparently that asshole is who we have to thank for the shaping the whole protect the rich and their property shit. Him only having 18 years woulda probably saved us a lot of bullshit.

dhork ,

It’s 18 years because we have 9 justices, and if we want to make terms expire on a regular basis we need to tie it to the size of the Court.

But guess what? If you pack the court to 13, then the math makes the term 26 years. Much more reasonable, right? I prefer a shorter term , so after the court is packed I would advocate for 13 year terms, renewable once. But I would accept 26 year terms, too.

Shawdow194 ,
@Shawdow194@kbin.run avatar

As others have clarified the 18 year is just about (or is) appropriate. I do think we will see an influx of younger court justices (hopefully!) and having an appealing career tenure would ideally incentivize younger folks persuing that position

Carrolade ,

Having life-tenure is not to incentivize people to do it. It’s to make them resistant to outside influence. If you’re going to be out of a job in x years, then it behoves you to make some friends. If your job is guaranteed for life, you need no friends.

It’s no different from tenured professorships. The job guarantee gives them the freedom to conduct research that will piss off even very powerful people without retaliation.

givesomefucks ,

He had 4 years, two of which we had the numbers…

It’s just a lot of Dems didn’t want to get rid of the fillibuster.

Having a D by your name isn’t enough, we need to elect Dems to those seats who are actually willing to fight.

ChonkyOwlbear ,

Term limits on SCJ would take a constitutional amendment, so no we haven’t had the numbers.

themeatbridge , (edited )

He’d have to be a stronger leader to pull that off. But you’re right, it starts at the bottom. Elect progressives to local positions, and that becomes the foundation of the party. It’s precisely what conservatives have I been doing for 50 years.

SteveFromMySpace ,

Even a strong leader can’t executive order a constitutional amendment.

themeatbridge ,

If Biden were a strong leader, he could challenge his party and his followers to do the hard things. He could make a persuasive argument, rally the masses, and convince people that it is in their best interest to do what he wants to do. A strong leader would do the right thing, even if they might lose.

It’s much easier to motivate your followers if they are all narcissistic bigots, of course.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

We didn’t have the numbers. The Senate was 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 2 Independents. 2 of the Democrats (Manchin and Sinema) flipped to I.

So 50-46-4. And Manchin and Sinema refused to touch the filibuster.

ChocoboRocket ,

Not saying there wouldn’t be more, but at least two Democrats are Republicans who ran under D and sabotaged several democratic agendas.

It would have been great to have the Democrats tow the party line and pass more meaningful legislation, but corrupt politicians gotta corrupt.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

https://y.yarn.co/45260a30-de92-45d2-9143-e9a4ac9938c7_text.gif

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •