Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Don't really think that's a good idea. I bet it fails in House. Hoyt Sep 2020 #1
Great Idea reggaehead Sep 2020 #18
Dumb idea. Archae Sep 2020 #2
court justices are not elected. think of more as a retirement age except term not age nt msongs Sep 2020 #4
Ten Years.... LovingA2andMI Sep 2020 #3
You would think Republicans would get behind this. Lasher Sep 2020 #6
I too am wondering if 18 years is still too long FreddyWhite Sep 2020 #16
I've been thinking about this for awhile reggaehead Sep 2020 #19
18 is associated with chai in Hebrew - and chai means life karynnj Sep 2020 #50
Constitution says lifetime terms qazplm135 Sep 2020 #5
From the article PSPS Sep 2020 #9
Guess who has the final say in challenging this? Polybius Sep 2020 #12
That doesn't avoid the constitutional concerns qazplm135 Sep 2020 #29
It looks like they're trying to get around that... Salviati Sep 2020 #10
If you are rotated out permanently qazplm135 Sep 2020 #30
It actually doesn't use the word lifetime and is like most things vague. Statistical Sep 2020 #45
except that qazplm135 Sep 2020 #47
Correct. roamer65 Sep 2020 #51
I hope they are doing some useful things also. marybourg Sep 2020 #7
Make it a 12 year term with an option for a single 12 year extension if two thirds of the House cstanleytech Sep 2020 #8
I always thought every official in govt should be limited to 12 years. padah513 Sep 2020 #23
Actually House members should be switched to 6 year terms and Senators to 8 year cstanleytech Sep 2020 #24
No way would I support this Polybius Sep 2020 #11
Wrong. Add more justices to the bench. Add DC and PR as states. Yavin4 Sep 2020 #13
Nope. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #25
Why not? Yavin4 Sep 2020 #35
Because then its just a tit-for-tat after that. We'll end up with 75 judges. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #38
They have power now, and they're using it to their advantage. Yavin4 Sep 2020 #39
But they're not doing "x". They had it all for 2 yrs & didnt add judges. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #42
So, how do you rectify their hypocrisy? Yavin4 Sep 2020 #43
Great, One Each 2 Years n/t DallasNE Sep 2020 #14
Great, One Each 2 Years n/t DallasNE Sep 2020 #15
I say go for it! FreddyWhite Sep 2020 #17
Isn't a better threat to let them know that once they take power they will increase the # of sits? Escurumbele Sep 2020 #22
Exercise in futility. LogicFirst Sep 2020 #20
I would rather see a bill that assures there is a balance of power in the Supreme Court Escurumbele Sep 2020 #21
The Constitution doesn't recognize parties Coleman Sep 2020 #28
The public would support this overwhelmingly. Just as they do term limits for politicians. oldsoftie Sep 2020 #26
I doubt it could get the necessary support in the states onenote Sep 2020 #49
Popular bucolic_frolic Sep 2020 #27
funny that... Javaman Sep 2020 #31
yes, term limits for every politician RicROC Sep 2020 #32
It would further politicize the Court onenote Sep 2020 #33
I tend to agree. crickets Sep 2020 #40
That's not good enough... dajoki Sep 2020 #34
Idiotic virtue signaling The Mouth Sep 2020 #36
I still favor the National Court of Appeals proposal.... lastlib Sep 2020 #37
Not constitutional FBaggins Sep 2020 #41
It would probably be good to read at least something about this Hortensis Sep 2020 #44
So what will happen to Thomas and Breyer? Statistical Sep 2020 #46
Nothing onenote Sep 2020 #48
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Democrats prepare bill li...»Reply #46