• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    With 6-year terms an unpopular President could appoint a majority in the period of their first term, then cancel elections with their backing.

    • panthera_@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That scenario would involve Congress and his nominated justices going along. Longer term limits would mean a bad justice staying for a long time.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Because we’ve never had a case where the most-unpopular President in history was able to rush judicial nominees through the Senate and stack the Court with political hacks who have been credibly accused of sexual assault and drunkenness. The Senate has totally saved us from that.

        If we had 18-year terms, we’d have 4 Obama appointees, 2 Biden, and 3 Trump right now. So it would still be 6-3, but the other direction, and it would represent the medium-long term political viewpoint of the American people, not the newest short-term reactionary position that a 6-year term would provide.

        • panthera_@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          18-year terms is a good idea. I just feel uneasy about a bad justice serving that long. Mathematicians should be given the problem of coming up with the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority. They would be allowed to change the number of justices.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That scenario would involve Congress and his nominated justices going along.

        Ah, and as we’ve all seen that could never happen… 🙄