• Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We the people made up the rules and we can change them in any way we want. If the supreme Court has some kind of magic that stops that they are free to deploy that but in the meantime we can assume that they are flesh bags like the rest of us.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He means absent a Constitutional amendment. And he’s correct.

      Congress authority is limited to saying what type of cases the court can take and how many justices there are.

      Constitution says they are lifetime appointments. Can’t really attach rules to that. Even if they break the rules, they are still lifetime appointments.

      Only way out is death, retirement, or impeachment. I think only one justice was ever impeached.

      • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the only thing the constitution says about it is “there shall be a supreme court.”

        Regardless, the constitution was created to be amended, and it’s the states that vote on those. You know. That whole democracy thing.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Congress can impeach Alito and remove him from the bench. So, yes, they have some major muscle to flex. Unfortunately, the GOP is so corrupt, they wouldn’t impeach Alito for for shooting a random stranger on 5th ave and having sex with their corpse., in broad daylight, on live TV.

      • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe the proposals being floated right now are for instituting term limits by having justices retire to Senior Justice status after a set number of years. They’d still be technically appointed and able to sit in on cases in special circumstances, but not on normal duty.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess we could just just pass a law that any supreme court justice that sits on the bench after attaining the age of 80 will be summarily executed in celebration of their achievements.

        Then when the alw is challenged to the court, the textualists can’t argue that it’s cruel and unusual punishment because it is infact a celebration.