this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1349 points (99.3% liked)

News

23305 readers
3723 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] M500@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I don’t get the appointing of a new judge every two years for 18 years. Does that mean that the courts are gonna like fill up with a bunch of justices or is it just every two years you can replace an empty seat?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 142 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To expand on what AirBreather said, the new justices would have an 18 year term, replacing one every two years.

this is actually a reasonable solution I pushed a while back. Basically, it would keep the aspect of the court changing slowly (an intentional feature,) but it would still let it change. Further, each president gets two SCOTUS peeps at predictable times, removing the ability of the senate to play games and game the system. (or installing relatively young judges who will serve for forty+ years.)

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was pleasantly surprised to see him propose this too. I've heard a lot of people online throw around the idea. I'm glad it's getting more mainstream attention too.

Not to mention, this also ensures the court is keeping up with modern society. You won't have 80 year old judges using outdated interpretations

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Exactly. You get steady change lacking wild swings, and no president will have the ability to change the majority in a single term (unless it was already close to that.)

[–] airbreather@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with in whatever way, the Court will have nine members, each appointed one after the other with two years in between, with the next-most-senior member's term expiring every two years to keep the number stable at nine.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with

This sounds specially more ominous now that the President is untouchable.

[–] CaptSneeze@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The same dark comedy thought crossed my mind!

I expect they might retire and replace the existing judges, one every two years, in order of length of time already served. This would make it so they start this new system off already having 9 seats filled.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

— Take care of them.

— How are the justices?
— Six feet under.
— What?! I told you to take care of them!
— Right, and I took “care” of them.

[–] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’m curious to see how they plan to transition to that system. Force one of the current Justices out every two years? If so, which one? Or do they plan on just starting fresh? Then who gets ousted in two years? To be clear, I fully support this plan, I’m just curious how the transition will go if/when this passes.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Force one of the current Justices out every two years? If so, which one?

Presumably the currently longest serving justice.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

And then we get chief justice Thomas for 2 years, followed by 2 years of chief justice Alito...

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

I wouldn't be surprised if they allow the sitting justices to continue their life appointment

[–] Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How many justices do you think there will be if there’s a new one appointed each two years and they are term-limited to 18 years?

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

As I understood how this would work is the next appointment will be "term limited". After 18 years they would assume senior justice status. This will do two things. First, allow for someone new to be appointed. Second, ensure they don't run afoul of the lifetime appointment status.

Under the senior status, the most recent to leave the court can step in again as a sub after a death pending installation of a new "starter".

So in one way yes, there will be many more justices... But there will be a starting 9, and more in a pseudo retirement. This will be a long road to get there, as they need to wait for the first vacancy, and then the next, etc.