With term limits that solves itself.
But its a moot point I doubt any enforceable ethics and compliance structure will pass.
It is weird to see SC justices who are the final arbiters of the constitution and therefore wield immense power have so little checks and balances in place.
But is that a symptom of being in office too long or just a symptom of the corruption of power? I think a president who has only served four years is just as likely to declare themselves “General Park” as someone who has been in office longer.
The length of time gives them more opportunities to build a loyal cadre of likeminded sycophants.
That’s a good point.
General Park couldn’t have declared a coup against himself and overturn elections without his buildup of support in the South Korean Army. He needed help.
justices don’t serve terms.
there are plenty of checks and balances.
The congress can limit their jurisdiction
The congress can impeach them
The congress can tell them how they are to interpret the law and what definitions to use doing it
what they cannot do, is legislate a “term” unless and until they amend the constitution.
They should offer to term limit themselves first. But of course that would require integrity.
Right which if you go back several posts we were discussing they should have term limits
According to the critprogs, he already did.
they don’t have terms to limit. legislation won’t change that.
Well it’s a good thing we don’t vote for Supreme Court justices then
Lifetime appointments make me very uncomfortable, and the ship has sailed on the idea that justices are politically impartial.
I agree.
That 
And that would be the correct channel.
I believe term limits on SCOTUS could cause justices to make or withhold decisions because their term is nearly up, this could add blatant politics into a process that’s supposed to be neutral.
Don’t know why people don’t realize, all of these calls to reform the court, have congress impose ethics on them (as if they have any themselves), pack the court, stack the court, and attack the court, are exactly what politicizes the court. The SCOTUS varies from time to time, it was left center for many, many years. It is now right center. There are many things the center agrees on, judicial philosophy is not one of them. The court has moved closer to what it was before FDR ■■■■■■ it up. But it is a long way from where it was then, and still closer to Berger than to Marshall.
The critprogs need to settle down. They have worked themselves into a frenzy. I say look at who you all got in place and ask yourselves which one of your dimwitted spectacles could even pull off an amendment. A barmaid? Shifty shiff? Or kneepads harris?
Critprogs are getting a good dose of reality and the rest of us are sitting back, watching their fee fee melt down, and asking for more popcorn.
A separate but equal form of government for the purposes of “checks and balances” of all 3. Isn’t it cool, that the 1/3 doesn’t like to be “checked and balanced” so, let’s invalidate the intent of our Founding Fathers and allow political corruption to exacerbate.
there are just as many checks on the judiciary as there are on the other two branches. The fact that they are seldom used does not make them non existant
