General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you support expanding the Supreme Court?
SC term limit poll107 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
No, leave the Court as is | |
10 (9%) |
|
No, but term limits should be added | |
3 (3%) |
|
Yes, make it 11 justices - lifetime appointment | |
1 (1%) |
|
Yes, make it 11 justices and add a term limit | |
1 (1%) |
|
Yes, make it 13 justices - lifetime appointment | |
7 (7%) |
|
Yes, make it 13 justices and add a term limit | |
84 (79%) |
|
Other | |
1 (1%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
diane in sf
(4,070 posts)calimary
(84,006 posts)This lifetime appointments shit has MORE than outlived its own usefulness.
Afrocat
(2,782 posts)Fla Dem
(25,597 posts)The Federal appellate courts have been expanded over the years to handle the increase in cases. Supreme Court Justices should match the number of appellate court districts.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
Also, along with term limits should be an age limit. Retire at 30 years on the bench or at age 70.
LiberalFighter
(53,431 posts)It would be the easiest to enact. Would not require an Amendment. Your last two would.
Response to Fla Dem (Reply #4)
LiberalFighter This message was self-deleted by its author.
Wednesdays
(20,225 posts)Biden doesn't want it. Schumer doesn't want it. Johnson definitely doesn't want it. And three-quarters of the states ain't gonna vote for it.
So it doesn't matter if I'm for it or against it.
In It to Win It
(9,107 posts)Polybius
(17,326 posts)Leave it as is. Keeping winning elections and eventually the majority will be liberal.
Emile
(28,902 posts)Polybius
(17,326 posts)That's why the Senate is far more important than the House.
standingtall
(2,905 posts)Term limits may sound nice, but there is no chance that's ever going to happen, because the Supreme Court would have the final say and their not going to rule for their own mandatory retirement. As far as getting enough support for a Constitutional amendment that's never going to happen either.
Trueblue1968
(17,944 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,431 posts)Back during FDR there was an attempt to create legislation that would add a justice when one turned 70. Those are 70 or older would still stay on the court but all those that age or older would split a vote.
If it was in effect now, Thomas and Alito would each have one half vote. Sotomayor turns 70 later this year and Roberts in January.
Polybius
(17,326 posts)Half a vote over 70 would be ruled unconstitutional.
haele
(13,382 posts)As do the districts. If your district gets consolidated, then it's rock, paper, scissors as to decide who gets the remaining district.
Haele
Bettie
(16,862 posts)panels running at any given time. When the number of justices was set, the population was about a third of what it is, less than that actually; let them hear more cases and have two randomly chosen panels available to hear them.
Also, it would make recusal much easier. Oh and an actual binding code of ethics including guidelines for recusal and rules for accepting gifts should be put in place as well.