supreme court justices have lifetime job security to prevent corruption.
every other position in every other part of the government has term limits to prevent corruption.
edit: apparently people are having a problem with the point I'm trying to make. my point is that minimizing corruption is the supposed reasoning for term limits but also lifetime appointment, which are exact opposites.
obviously neither can prevent corruption as we can clearly see both kinds of positions hold lots of corrupt people. but at least elected officials can in theory be held accountable for their corruption in elections. supreme court justices answer to no one. for life. that's fucked up.
No, it means they can be as corrupt as they want because they're unaccountable to anyone. They never have to be reelected and there's no mechanism for removing them, or even establishing and enforcing rules. They've found the Ultimate Loophole.
no, but they can surely end it sometime. a president can be corrupt but they have to fuck off after 8 years max. alito can say fuck democracy, blame his wife for it and live the rest of his life doing his best to ruin yours.
I'd say they limit the impact of corruption.
Because new people can't be corrupt? For the record, George Santos was one of the newest members of Congress.
Just because you don't know their names doesn't mean they're clean.
So your answer is to just let known corruption continue.
How does that solve anything?
Term limits go both ways. They can introduce or reduce corruption. In general I think they add corruption, even if they wouldn't right this moment.
I'd rather pack the court or find another solution to fix corruption in the current court.
No, corruption is not the reason. They have lifetime appointments to
Be independent of political leaders and to be above politics
For example, Trump maybe have appointed all too many and they may even cackle greedily while doing his bidding, but they’ll be there long after Trump is gone, doing their thing, with no ties to any remaining political leaders. Independent of politics. This is why appointing someone capable is more important than appointing a lackey, at least historically
the supreme court has never been apolitical since its inception, and it never will. people hold beliefs and opinions and that makes up their political views. they don't suddenly become empty vessels when they're appointed to any position, lifetime or not.
i don't get how appointing a lackey is supposed to be a bad idea. if anything, lifetime appointment makes it more important to appoint lackeys so your "rule" stays long after your term.
supreme court justices have lifetime job security to prevent corruption.
every other position in every other part of the government has term limits to prevent corruption.
edit: apparently people are having a problem with the point I'm trying to make. my point is that minimizing corruption is the supposed reasoning for term limits but also lifetime appointment, which are exact opposites.
obviously neither can prevent corruption as we can clearly see both kinds of positions hold lots of corrupt people. but at least elected officials can in theory be held accountable for their corruption in elections. supreme court justices answer to no one. for life. that's fucked up.
No, it means they can be as corrupt as they want because they're unaccountable to anyone. They never have to be reelected and there's no mechanism for removing them, or even establishing and enforcing rules. They've found the Ultimate Loophole.
that's my point
Term limits absolutely don't prevent corruption.
no, but they can surely end it sometime. a president can be corrupt but they have to fuck off after 8 years max. alito can say fuck democracy, blame his wife for it and live the rest of his life doing his best to ruin yours.
I'd say they limit the impact of corruption.
Because new people can't be corrupt? For the record, George Santos was one of the newest members of Congress.
Just because you don't know their names doesn't mean they're clean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_members_of_the_118th_United_States_Congress
So your answer is to just let known corruption continue.
How does that solve anything?
Term limits go both ways. They can introduce or reduce corruption. In general I think they add corruption, even if they wouldn't right this moment.
I'd rather pack the court or find another solution to fix corruption in the current court.
No, corruption is not the reason. They have lifetime appointments to Be independent of political leaders and to be above politics
For example, Trump maybe have appointed all too many and they may even cackle greedily while doing his bidding, but they’ll be there long after Trump is gone, doing their thing, with no ties to any remaining political leaders. Independent of politics. This is why appointing someone capable is more important than appointing a lackey, at least historically
the supreme court has never been apolitical since its inception, and it never will. people hold beliefs and opinions and that makes up their political views. they don't suddenly become empty vessels when they're appointed to any position, lifetime or not.
i don't get how appointing a lackey is supposed to be a bad idea. if anything, lifetime appointment makes it more important to appoint lackeys so your "rule" stays long after your term.