General Discussion

tinrobot

(11,937 posts)

27. I don't see anything explicitly stating lifetime terms

Sat Dec 20, 2025, 12:54 PM

Saturday

Here's article 3 section 1 :

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

All it says is they hold offices "during good behaviour" there's nothing about lifetime terms. Congress could conceivably legislate terms.

Of course, anything enacted by Congress regarding term limits would be challenged in... you guessed it... the Supreme Court.

We can only assume how that would turn out.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Democrats must expand the Supreme Court [View all] Fiendish Thingy Friday OP

The reform must be durable. Just adding 4 seats and nothing else is an exerise in futility. Wanderlust988 Saturday #1

We cannot govern out of fear of what republicans might do Fiendish Thingy Saturday #3

Hear, hear Cirsium Saturday #5

You're wanting to govern out of anger. You need to play the long view, not a short term sugar high Wanderlust988 Saturday #8

You are completely wrong Fiendish Thingy Saturday #12

Your first two solutions would require a Constitutional Amendment. SCOTUS Expansion does not. Celerity Saturday #4

This is the way! In It to Win It Saturday #9

I don't see anything explicitly stating lifetime terms tinrobot Saturday #27

Article III states that these judges "hold their office during good behavior," which means they have a lifetime Celerity Saturday #33

While the USSC is being revamped the justices should be split up and required to live and reside in the circuit they are in2herbs Saturday #31

100 justices Cirsium Saturday #6

The building is too small n/t Polybius Saturday #11

There is that Cirsium Saturday #21

Use the ballroom. Qutzupalotl Saturday #28

Not if the justices were required to live and reside in the circuit they have been assigned. in2herbs Saturday #32

I agree. Far more judges and rotate the benches they sit on so they cannot travelingthrulife Saturday #15

"some of the justices are assigned randomly and term limits" Polybius Saturday #10

So what? The Constitution was designed as a living document. We won't survive another court travelingthrulife Saturday #16

Well, a Amendment like that won't pass any time soon for one ITAL Saturday #17

I'm just saying that it's not an easy process Polybius Saturday #34

Gonna have to win several elections. Silent Type Saturday #2

I'm sure you can get bipartisan support to add them right now. hardluck Saturday #7

January 2029 is the time Fiendish Thingy Saturday #13

This actually makes me quite nervous Thunder Chicken Saturday #18

Republicans would have to kill the filibuster to expand the court Fiendish Thingy Saturday #19

Unless the Republicans do it first. Qutzupalotl Saturday #29

We should add 20-30 judges or more. Our population has grown, why not the USSC? travelingthrulife Saturday #14

Can't be an arms race.. RoseTrellis Saturday #20

Overall, I think it's a bad idea Renew Deal Saturday #22

The more the merrier Fiendish Thingy Saturday #24

Jamelle lacks imagination Seeking Serenity Saturday #23

Expanding the court and governing fearlessly will provide that result. Nt Fiendish Thingy Saturday #25

Explain, por favor Seeking Serenity Saturday #26

Impeachment for ignoring the Constitution is an adequate remedy bucolic_frolic Saturday #30

Do you guys have a Supreme Court in Canada? BannonsLiver Saturday #35

Reversing the criminal Citizens United decision is imperative Mysterian Saturday #36