Search
  • Matthew Diemer

Time for Justice


This week, we’re talking term limits, and today, I’m talking about what I think is the most controversial: The Supreme Court.


[IMAGE OF SUPREME COURT]


I think lifetime appointments are absolutely antiquated baloney, to be blunt.


They were decided almost 200 years ago when the average human lifespan wasn’t nearly as long, and when our founders had a hope in hell of creating a non-partisan court.


As we know now, that hope is over, and the best we can do is to make sure that the court has some balance-- which I believe is next-to-impossible with these lifetime appointments, not to mention the process for confirming new justices.


I believe that 18 years is a very healthy amount of time for a justice to serve, and is lengthy enough that the justice can focus on the law, and humane and logical interpretations of our constitution, rather than worrying about a high turnover.


Our court has become packed with very conservative justices, and they have the opportunity to rule the court for a very, very long time.


And since justices seem to retire or pass only when Republicans are in power…


This problem is only going to get worse.


I truly believe that term limits will help.


I believe that making sure that no one person holds power for too long is critical to a rebalance of power in our country.


But what do you think? Do you think lifetime appointments make sense in today’s day and age?


Find me on social media, and let me know!