this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44132 readers
945 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree on the legislature, but not the court. The legislature has to plan for the future. Their age should be below the average life expectancy. They need to have a foreseeable future for us to allow them to plan ours.
I would resolve the instability of the court by eliminating its fixed size. One new justice shall be appointed every other year. In the odd-numbered years, between election cycles.
This will tend to increase the size of the court over time. The average term length is currently about 16 years, but that is with strategic retirements. I would expect the average term to increase to 24 to 36 years, leaving us with a court of 12 to 18 justices.
you know that the size of the supreme court isn't specified by the constitution, right? there is no "fixed size"
The constitution isn't the only entity that could fix the size of the court. The court's size was fixed at nine by the Judiciary Act of 1869.
The revisions I proposed could be implemented by an act of Congress.
I would also establish a line of succession, where, if the president and the Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the justice is the highest ranking federal judge who has been confirmed by the Senate since this plan was enacted. Appointment to a federal bench contemplates the possibility that the judge could be elevated to SCOTUS. Confirmation after this point would signify the Senate's consent to this possibility. (I'd make it the highest ranking federal court judge, regardless of when they were confirmed, but that would probably be deemed unconstitutional)
ah woops, i conflated your comment with another one and thought you were proposing a constitutional amendment to change the court size. my bad.