It's actually "pretty sobering" that people like you believe in pretend law that grants SC justices life terms.
If a president tried to replace a SC justice there would be political heat, no doubt. But at the end of the day the president is elected to make these decisions. The Found Fathers did liberally grant a pendulum of power to Congress to create term limits or even grant lifetime membership. But this simply has not occurred; and you're pretty salty about that.
That’s not what that section says. It says that any appointments not specifically granted by the Cons ution should be made by law. Says absolutely nothing about terms.Cons ution is clear that terms are a matter of explicit law, actually (A 2, S2, C2).
Link? Easy to verify what I posted and sources.You talked yourself into a law that doesn't exist, bruh. My favorite has to be when you got so desperate that you pretended impeach and remove are interchangeable terms.
And yes, effectively, a successful impeachment process ends in removal. Not sure it can be more clear.
The Cons ution is the law of the land. You calling it ‘pretend law’ doesn’t make it so.It's actually "pretty sobering" that people like you believe in pretend law that grants SC justices life terms.
If a president tried to replace a SC justice there would be political heat, no doubt. But at the end of the day the president is elected to make these decisions. The Found Fathers did liberally grant a pendulum of power to Congress to create term limits or even grant lifetime membership. But this simply has not occurred; and you're pretty salty about that.
And there is no law that currently establishes life terms for Supreme Court justices. Thus, the nomination / fulfillment process for putting a different justice in place is not restricted. Again, the Cons ution is clear on this. If you don't like it, you can press for life terms enacted by Congress; but you don't get to make up your own law.
The President isn’t elected ‘to make these decisions’. The President is elected to govern a country based on the attributes the Cons ution grants it in Article 2 for the executive branch. A co-equal branch to the legislative and judiciary.
No link is necessary. You've wildly determined that impeachment covers all manner of removal of Federal positions; and that's just hacky AF, bruh. For a guy who likes to assume the role of most knowledgeable person on the board, that is grossly wrongheaded.
Sure there is law. It’s the US Cons ution, Article 3. It’s actually explicit about terms for judges. Reinforced by the fact that judges can only be removed by Congress through impeachment or by their own decision.
The Cons ution is the law of the land. You pretending is in the Cons ution / law that isn't there is your pretend law. It's been clearly explained to you. You know life terms are not the law (not counting that it is your pretend law).
lol widly. I quoted what the Cons ution says.
As of Nov 2003, there has been 61 federal/supreme judges investigated for impeachment (easily verifiable, I can provide reference). Only way to remove judges by a co-equal branch.
Trying so hard.
If that were true by your interpretation, then judges could disregard any term limits and keep their jobs indefinitely.
Post #51 in this thread (again, apparently a post you still haven’t read) has a direct quote from the Cons ution on judge term limits.
Impeachment and removal simply aren't interchangeable. But I would agree that the inaction of Congress in making SC terms combined with the fluffiness of 'good behavior' wording in Article III has created an impression that SC justices are set for life provided they don't commit impeachable offenses.
I did go back the last time you cited it and countered it IIRC; but generally I don't go re-digging on stuff that could simply be re-posted easily.
They do (federal/SCOTUS judges). Except for retirement, death or non-‘good behavior’ (impeachment).
That’s actually what it is right now. Changing that would involve a Cons utional amendment.
It’s not just Congress, it takes states to ratify. It’s a high bar, tbh
Article II makes it clear that Congress can provide for appointments (terms). Certainly, the judicial branch has predictably taken as much power as they can unto themselves in lieu of Congress setting proper appointments.
Appointments are not terms. Appointment is the ability to fill up an available position. Article 2 concludes with the clarification that any appointment powers not implicitly stated on the Cons ution must be made by law.
Terms are defined separately (ie: Article 2, Section 1 for the executive):
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term
Not coincidentally, Article 3 which sets up the judicial, states the terms for judgeships.
(And Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 establish terms for Congresscritters)
Appointments are not terms (explicitly); but they can include terms. I would say that it would've been better if the Cons ution was more explicit on that matter. But wherein the legislative and executive branch was subject to terms, it is clear that the FF saw value in flexibility on this point. But they do not say that justices are guaranteed life terms either (as that would not adhere to the flexibility of the appointment). Again, the judges naturally took advantage of the power vacuum in lieu of inaction by Congress.
I think, and this is certainly an opinion, that the judicial was the branch delegated to be as apolitical as possible, due to the fact that their check and balance role is to simply ascertain that law is applied properly (as opposed to Congress and the Executive, whose roles are to create and execute the law, respectively). In that sense, I do think there’s a value to longer tenured judges (experience, knowledge of jurisprudence, law, guaranteeing speedy verdicts).
That’s why I mentioned on my first post in this thread that I didn’t know how I felt about terms on the judicial specifically. I think it’s a different ball game from the clear cut political branches.
I agree with that. I think many if not most of the FF were lawyers and they saw the courts as fair-minded en ies in large part. I don't think they fully appreciated the possibility of the judicial branch being politicized.
that was the theory, along with wealthy white male slave-owning, anti-democratic FFs assuming "good faith" on all sides.
Judges are not apolitical. Now we have the bad-faith Repugs railroading totally unqualified, deeply politicized judges, from K on down, throughout the Federal judiciary.
So, term limits for all Federal judgeships.
But it won't be a solution, since the Repugs abandoned any pretense, appearance of "good faith" / pro-For The People decades ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote