• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
    link
    31 year ago

    That had to do with size of the court.

    Constitution says it’s a lifetime appointment, though.

    Can have all the rules you want, which the justices are free to ignore because the Constitution says it’s a lifetime seat.

    • @mriguy
      link
      101 year ago

      You just have to be creative. Pass a law saying holding a Supreme Court seat for more than 20 years is a capital crime.

      • @APassenger
        link
        21 year ago

        That would be unconstitutional and ruled that way, too. The law cannot take away a thing guaranteed by the Constitution (the lifetime appointment).

        There would need to be an impeachment or amendment. Or court-packing.

        • @mriguy
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It would be evil and unethical, yes, but not unconstitutional. They would still be justices right up until their execution, so it’s still a lifetime appointment.

          • @APassenger
            link
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It could still run up against tue 8th Amendment, more specifically the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

            Edit to add: being convicted of a capital crime does not guarantee a death sentence. Anything less than death still bumps into a Constitutional issue.

            Coming and going, there’s a likely Constituional challenge. An amendment would almost be easier.

            • @mriguy
              link
              31 year ago

              Ah, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that execution is not in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment, as long as you follow procedures and don’t apply it arbitrarily.

              “ In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court refused to expand Furman. The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence.” (From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty#:~:text=The Supreme Court has ruled,it must be carried out.)

              In this case, deterring justices from staying on the bench forever. :-)

              If, however, the passage of this law made SCOTUS decide the throw precedent to the wind (and this is the court to do it) and decide that the death penalty WAS in fact unconstitutional, I’d still take it as a win

              • @APassenger
                link
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying a death penalty of any kind is cruel or unusual. I’m saying it would be for this.

                Give this a look?

                Most notably:

                "To measure proportionality, the court must look at several factors. These factors include:

                • The severity of the offense
                • The harshness of the penalty
                • The sentences imposed on others within the same jurisdiction
                • The sentences imposed on others in different jurisdictions."

                I think you think I’m saying one thing, when I’m communicating something less superficial. I’m not saying there cannot be a death penalty.

                I’m saying if you want that for SCOTUS, it needs to meet the above criteria.

            • Alien Nathan Edward
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              death penalty isn’t cruel or unusual. scotus said so themselves. they even said a punishment could be cruel as long as it isn’t unusual.

        • @mriguy
          link
          41 year ago

          I’m a serious enough person (but barely enough). That wasn’t a serious suggestion though.

    • @TheCraiggers
      link
      81 year ago

      And president terms are 4 years. Doesn’t stop impeachment though.