this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
359 points (99.4% liked)

politics

29705 readers
2659 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 29 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

This is a constitutional amendment, y'all realize that's a generational project, right? Impeachment and removal are trivial by comparison.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 34 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Actually, the way that some of these recent bills have been worded is designed to be achievable without an amendment:

  • Justices that reach their term limit would be assigned "senior status"

  • they would still hold their appointment for life, but wouldnt actually serve on the Court again unless there was a vacancy

By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

NGL, this is clever as fuck.

This is the kind of shit I want out of democrats. I know rule of law is iffy right now but damn I rather have them doing shit like this than peering down their glasses at us.

[–] muffedtrims@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

I wonder what the Baileys would think of this.

[–] swab148@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago

Can I drink them from a shoe?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

why would you lie about that

[–] abrake@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago

By doing it this way, they preserve the "lifetime appointment" part in the Constitution while still leaving room for a regular infusion of new people

...Until someone brings a lawsuit, which goes to the Supreme Court and they conveniently decide for themselves that the law imposing term limits on them is unconstitutional.

[–] Mantzy81@aussie.zone 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

"Lifetime appointment" is still appropriate phrasing if part of their posting includes that they WILL be summarily "removed" if they are shown to be partisan.

/S obviously

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

Not really. The Constitution says that the SCOTUS exists but other than that, Congress can manage it. There have been MANY more than 9 justices in the past, and there have been many less. In each case, Congress passed a law setting that number.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 12 hours ago

If a 2nd American Civil War happens, we would have many generational projects to complete. Might as well get discussion about them started now, so that implementation can happen quickly when the time comes.