this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
1526 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1778 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 122 points 1 year ago (6 children)

How about term limits in congress too?

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 100 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m all for that too, but at least they can be voted out of office. Supreme Court Justices are appointed (which I’m ok with because I don’t want them campaigning) for life. Once they’re there, they never have to leave.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Do the justices get protection like the president? Seems like they should have better protection since they are lifers while the president is only max 8 years.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Like all federal court officials, they are protected by US Marshals

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago

I only just learned about this when I started a new gubment job. Wild stuff.

Now, as to what really needs to happen here, Thomas, at the very least, should face corruption and bribery charges. Maybe conspiracy to commit, too.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they are protected by US Marshals

I'm assuming after this?

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Federal judges sometimes don't want protection around them and it's not like the Secret Service and the President. While the Secret Service can tell the President what must happen, the Marshals can't mandate protection details. But, when things like that happen, they certainly do.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea was to ensure that the court never became political. This obviously didn’t work out, but the framers had good intentions.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they wanted that it shouldn't have been appointed by a political party

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

There were no political parties and they literally believed that none would ever form. They created the US government based on the idea that parties would never exist. Naive, obviously.

[–] brawleryukon@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

while the president is only max 8 years.

10, technically, but it doesn't change your point. Just felt like doing an ackshully.

#sorrynotsorry

[–] jackpot@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

10? i thought as long as they didnt get the majority of the term they could keep going (so thereoretically infinite)

[–] brawleryukon@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Per the 22nd Amendment, someone who has held the office for more than two years of someone else's elected term is limited to a single elected term of their own. So if you've done two or fewer, you are still eligible to be elected twice. Those two initial years plus your two elected terms would be ten years.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Also there's the whole non-consecutive term thing.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Technically, 9 and 364/365 years, give or take a day for leap year(s).

[–] jackpot@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

okay so just serve 1.99 of the terms of multiple other people and you have infinite terms

[–] loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

The US Marshalls provide their protection.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We elect House members every 2 years and Senate every 6, whereas Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments

This is comparing apples and plastic bottles

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I feel like regulations on plastic bottles are just as useful as regulations on apples, even if the regulations are a bit different.

Just because two things are different doesn't mean they can't have something in common.

[–] aircooledJenkins@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fix election rules, campaign finances and gerrymandering and congress will get sorted out.

[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Couldn't the same be said for the supreme court?

[–] aircooledJenkins@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Supreme Court Justices are not elected.

[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But the article says some of those reasons are why this law is needed.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's almost too easy.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weirdly enough, that was actually one of the things Trump campaigned on. Just about the only thing I've ever agreed with him on, and I don't like the feeling lol.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

He campaigned on a lot of things he never had any intention of following up on. I wouldn't take that as a sign that he actually agreed with the sentiment.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And all their salaries should be decided by the people.

[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Ironically, one of the few explicit stipulations in the constitution about the supreme court says their salary cannot be reduced during their time in office.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds great in principle but the reality is that the problem is lobbying and money in politics, not politicians who stay in office too long. Term limits tend to give lobbyists more power because they can "guide" the new politicians more easily if a given percentage of them are always new. The problem is the money.