• Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    So, do you not think the principle of ensuring a justice doesn’t have to worry about their next gig is valuable, or do you think youthfulness is just more important?

    I think the court should be expanded, quite a lot. There is nothing magical or constitutional about the number nine. Congress could easily expand it to twenty, or fifty, or more while limiting justices by terms or age would require a constitutional amendment. Nothing says every justice has to sit on every case. A larger court would be significantly less prone to extremes, reducing the importance of individual nominations.

    • frazw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That would be putting words in my mouth.

      Firstly, I think that having been a justice, which is a very distinguished post , they would never have to worry about future employment, it would probably find them. I also think that a job for life means you don’t worry about scrutiny. You can do what you want almost without consequence because you don’t need to worry about what comes next. If no one can fire you, and you don’t need to worry about people being happy with your performance, you can be free so act however you want. In your own interest. In the interest of some benefactor, or should you choose to, in the interest of the people.

      Second, I did not say youthfulness it’s important. There is a vast gulf between youthful and aged. I don’t want a 20 year old justice and more than a 70 year old one.

      Lastly, expanding it would be great. No arguments here.