Pixel_CS

How can you say term limits are the solution when a lot of the court has been appointed in the last two admins? Obviously this is about politics to you when you don’t mention the Sotomayor ethics scandal that also is a big deal as Alito and Thomas. The court should not be ruling in line with public sentiment, but in line with the constitution and as statutes provide. I guess my question is why are you a partisan hack when real SCOTUS reform is non partisan and worth discussing?

18 years is idiotic considering presidential terms are 4 years, atleast make is divisible by 4 so it aligns with president turn over. Also this isn’t even starting with the fact that term limits would take a constitutional amendment.

"extreme rulings" made me lol.

The Supreme Court is issuing extreme rulings deeply at odds with both precedent and public sentiment. Ethics scandals involving Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas highlight the lack of accountability and basic checks and balances.

You're kidding yourself saying this isn't political.

The precedent argument is garbage. Plessy v Ferguson was a precedent once upon a time. Avoiding public sentiment is why there are no term limits. And again, your failure to mention Sotomayor is hilarious.

Edit: 8 of 9 were appointed in the last 23 years (4 admins). 4 of 9 in the last 5 years. The court does not have a turnover problem. Term limits do not prevent death either so while less would die in office under an 18 year limit, some still would so you’re wrong that a president wouldn’t get more than 2

Legitimacy is another word for “public sentiment,” see earlier comments

So much this