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
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
38. I much prefer Andrew Yang's proposed plan
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 06:23 PM
Oct 2019

18 YEAR TERM LIMIT FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Our Founding Fathers intended the judicial branch of government to be free of political pressures, interpreting and applying the Constitution to the laws passed by Congress in order to ensure that no violations were found.

Today, the Supreme Court is increasingly polarized around political lines, and the selection of a new Justice is a bitter fight that divides the country. The process has become increasingly contentious, and very few Americans believe that the Supreme Court is impartial.

The first step in ensuring that the Supreme Court doesn’t lose the faith of the American people is to establish a clear code of ethics that applies to the Justices. Currently, all inferior courts have a Code of Ethics applied to them, and violations can be litigated. However, as the Supreme Court of the land, there’s no applicable Code that applies to its members.

Congress has put a few requirements on Justices – recusement requirements and financial disclosure requirements – that the Justices have abided by. It’s time that a full Code of Ethics is established, ensuring that people know our Supreme Court Justices are acting ethically.

Additionally, the stakes involved in the appointment of Supreme Court justices are creating partisan battles that divide our country, create bitter resentment, and allow individuals to delegitimize later decisions with which they disagree.

The stats largely back up that we do have a partisan problem on the Supreme Court. The number of 5-4 decisions, reflecting the line between Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed Justices, has increased in recent years. When a new seat opens up, lifetime appointments incentivize finding the youngest, most partisan jurist who can gain confirmation in order to ensure a particular bent on the Court for as long as possible. Current Justices can expect to serve for 40 or more years. For historical context, the average Justice has served for 15 years, though Justices appointed since 1970 have served for an average of 26 years.

This isn’t the way it was envisioned at the founding of our country, when life expectancy was shorter and Justices would often retire or resign well ahead of their deaths. We need to return some level of sanity and balance to the Supreme Court.

The answer to this is to impose term limits on Justices, and set their terms at regular intervals. Each President should be allowed to appoint two Justices per term served, in their first and third years in office.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Recommendations

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

What happened to Pete? BeyondGeography Oct 2019 #1
Bazinga! bluewater Oct 2019 #2
Funny ritapria Oct 2019 #17
no Celerity Oct 2019 #31
Souter was great, Kennedy was a nightmare BeyondGeography Oct 2019 #36
it is totally taken out of context, and spun up into a false frame, as usual. Celerity Oct 2019 #39
It's potentially noble, but good luck selling "depoliticization" in this environment BeyondGeography Oct 2019 #40
That is a valid point of view to take, but I do not think depoliticisation of the courts whilst Celerity Oct 2019 #41
Thanks for the full context, Celerity. MBS Oct 2019 #63
Sorry, but this is bullshit dansolo Oct 2019 #68
there're many options to consider, and it's not bullshit to call out disingenuous pull quote attacks Celerity Oct 2019 #69
It's bullshit because it is unconstitutional dansolo Oct 2019 #75
non sequitur Celerity Oct 2019 #76
My apologies, I meant to reply to the OP dansolo Oct 2019 #78
totally oki!!! I do the same at times, lolol Celerity Oct 2019 #80
Seriously!! That's TWO strikes against Mayor Pete... and he was in my top five. InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2019 #51
I think he means as far as being largely non-partisan, even if conservative Tiggeroshii Oct 2019 #3
Kennedy wrote Citizens United. crazytown Oct 2019 #7
Yeah point taken Tiggeroshii Oct 2019 #12
These swing voters always seem to go against us when it costs the bosses money. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2019 #32
And voted to hold the ACA unconstitutional crazytown Oct 2019 #34
Like I said, cost their handlers money. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2019 #35
Wow nt redqueen Oct 2019 #4
Justice Kennedy who wrote Citizens United? crazytown Oct 2019 #5
Not what he said at ALL. He has repeatedly said he would appoint justices who share his progressive jezebel321 Oct 2019 #6
Which speaks volumes about the problem with his plans for the court. StevieM Oct 2019 #11
and that is a fair policy argument to have. I just take issue to the claiming he said something jezebel321 Oct 2019 #15
How is that not what he said? kcr Oct 2019 #55
Isn't Pete taking this center lane thing a bit too far? dem4decades Oct 2019 #8
Well considering that what's considered centrist in this country redqueen Oct 2019 #21
In what countries? Do you know what the right wing stands for in Europe? People called centrists emmaverybo Oct 2019 #59
....Ssssoo, Pete Wants a Justice Willing to Retire Out of the Blue on His Say-So? The_Counsel Oct 2019 #9
Yeah, doesn't Pete know about that?! Cha Oct 2019 #22
Justice Kennedy who voted to declare the ACA to be unconstitutional? (eom) StevieM Oct 2019 #10
For those who want more context (like myself): demmiblue Oct 2019 #13
Thanks for posting. SharonClark Oct 2019 #23
+10000 Celerity Oct 2019 #30
I much prefer Andrew Yang's proposed plan Sherman A1 Oct 2019 #38
If that were applied today it would force the removal of dsc Oct 2019 #45
I completely disagree with your conclusion Sherman A1 Oct 2019 #47
It's the Dynamics of the Courts that need changing. MarcA Oct 2019 #50
Those Dynamics you mention can change Sherman A1 Oct 2019 #61
Could it be that Buttigieg was thinking about Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell? alwaysinasnit Oct 2019 #14
Justice Kennedy conspired with Trump to give us his protege Kavanaugh ritapria Oct 2019 #16
Yup... that's a non-starter for me. InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2019 #53
I'll Take Another RBG Me. Oct 2019 #18
He literally said RBG in his extended answer which was posted in this thread dsc Oct 2019 #46
Good Me. Oct 2019 #48
I for one am enjoying the the vetting/showing their true asses. nini Oct 2019 #19
Except for Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2019 #37
Ugh. Voltaire2 Oct 2019 #20
Kennedy was the 5th vote on PDittie Oct 2019 #24
I think it would be wise for everyone here to read Post #15. See what you think then. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Oct 2019 #25
+1. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2019 #27
see my reply as well Peggy Celerity Oct 2019 #33
Ok now he is off my list. nycbos Oct 2019 #26
Almost right there with you... never thought I'd say that!! InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2019 #52
We need the next 2 justices to be extremely liberal, just to have any semblance of balance! Meadowoak Oct 2019 #28
This tweet ignores his comments in the interview, in which he said Celerity Oct 2019 #29
you're not the only one who noticed this Otto Lidenbrock Oct 2019 #43
+2 mr_lebowski Oct 2019 #56
his swing in the last few weeks is quite incredible. Kurt V. Oct 2019 #42
Because corporations are people too dalton99a Oct 2019 #44
Bundlers are people too! Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2019 #49
Lots of ideas from a lot of contenders for POTUS. Regardless, Buttigieg will not get the nomination. YOHABLO Oct 2019 #54
Such ridiculously disingenuous takes on what candidates actually SAID should be banned on the forum mr_lebowski Oct 2019 #57
+10000 Celerity Oct 2019 #65
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2019 #58
not at all, because it is a disingenuous pull quote, spun up and taken out of context Celerity Oct 2019 #66
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2019 #71
chalk and cheese Celerity Oct 2019 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2019 #73
He is a social liberal on some issues, but not really progressive in a global sense. It is not emmaverybo Oct 2019 #60
Not what he said but continue your outrage... brooklynite Oct 2019 #62
+10000 Celerity Oct 2019 #67
Remember? Kennedy cast the deciding vote to uphold gay marriage MBS Oct 2019 #64
Why do Buttigieg's supporters make excuses for him? RLG Oct 2019 #70
pointing out repeated patterns of misinformation and out of context pull-quote attempts Celerity Oct 2019 #74
I disagree with Mayor Pete on this strongly Gothmog Oct 2019 #77
Justice Kennedy gutted the voting rights act. Gothmog Oct 2019 #79
Ugh! DesertRat Oct 2019 #81
He has sunk like a stone Tarc Oct 2019 #82
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Buttigieg says he wants m...»Reply #38