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

politics

29722 readers
3154 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
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Constitution specifies that the justices and other federal judges shall serve "during good behavior." This is interpreted as a lifetime appointment, subject to impeachment. That's why this proposal is written as a constitutional amendment. It would need a 2/3 majority in both houses, and then 3/4 of state legislatures would need to ratify.

There's another idea floating around to impose de facto term limits by regular federal law by rotating justices in and out of lower federal courts at defined intervals.

There are also a bunch of other things that an angry Congress could do to rein in the court (using regular federal law):

  • they could use the good behavior clause to impose a written ethics code, or the CLE requirement that another commenter mentioned.
  • they can set the court's jurisdiction (except for suits between states). They can take jurisdiction away.
  • On another jurisdictional topic: currently nearly all of the court's docket is discretionary. They get to decide which cases to take up. Congress can take that power away and force the court to hear appeals on a mandatory basis again.
  • Congress controls the annual budget. They get to decide whether the justices have money for clerks, robes, and office supplies or not.
  • Congress can specify what dates the court is in session and for how long. At least one time, this power was used to try to prevent the court from meeting.
  • Likewise, for a large part of the court's history, Congress decreed that the court meet in the basement of the Capitol. Not the big fancy marble building. It could happen again.
  • as part of its oversight power, Congress has the power to subpoena justices to hearings and to grill them on their decisions on live TV. This actually happened to Justice Kennedy after Bush v. Gore.
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 21 hours ago

Personally, I would consider term and age limits to be part of good behavior. The supreme court, much like the presidency, should be held to much higher standards than most positions of authority. Good mental health, understanding of the world, and general decency, isn't a big ask.