Who Says Supreme Court Justices Get Lifetime Tenure?

[Virginiá]

Who Says Supreme Court Justices Get Lifetime Tenure?
The text of the Constitution says no such thing.

https://newrepublic.com/article/151620/says-supreme-court-justices-get-lifetime-tenure

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I always just assumed that judicial term limits would require amending the constitution, but I'm not so sure anymore. It is pretty vague and doesn't seem conclusive on the subject.

It's at least vague enough to be worth trying via an act of Congress, which, funny enough, would definitely end up requiring the USSC to rule on term limits for itself (and probably the rest of the federal judiciary).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Constitution is fairly explicit that Article III get life tenure. "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ..."

However, as has been pointed out by some scholars, it doesn't necessarily require impeachment to remove an Article III judge.  While not much used these days, a writ of scire facias is an alternative means and Congress could define what constitutes "good behavior".  In practice, this would mainly enable SCOTUS to weed out Article III judges, including themselves, who hold on to office despite not being able or willing to fulfill their duties, but it could in theory be used to justify other Congressional definitions of what constitutes "good behaviour".  (Perhaps failure to do more than show up when cases are heard could be used to get rid of Thomas?  )

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Democrats should just set the term length to 1 year in 2021, removing all the current SCOTUS members from the bench instantly, then immediately repeal it and appoint 9 new members.

Possibly reappoint Kagan and Sotomeyer if they want to be reappointed.

[Xeuma]

Democrats should just set the term length to 1 year in 2021, removing all the current SCOTUS members from the bench instantly, then immediately repeal it and appoint 9 new members.

Possibly reappoint Kagan and Sotomeyer if they want to be reappointed.

They can't just set a term length.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I voted "yes" but I neglected to read the "term limits" part, so I should have voted "no."

Sure, the Constitution doesn't say anything about guaranteed lifetime tenure, but term limits inherently contradicts "during good behavior" - who's to say that Article III judges can't have "good behavior" up to the end of their lives? - so yes, you'd need a constitutional amendment for term limits to happen here.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Logically, it seems like it implies lifetime tenure. I imagine a clever Congress might try to subvert that, but that law would then go for review in front of...the Supreme Court.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Logically, it seems like it implies lifetime tenure. I imagine a clever Congress might try to subvert that, but that law would then go for review in front of...the Supreme Court.

The law would go into effect in time that when it is reviewed by the Supreme Court, the justices affected by it would have already been pushed off the court, and new justices might have already been appointed in their place, if it was set to go into effect immediately.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Logically, it seems like it implies lifetime tenure. I imagine a clever Congress might try to subvert that, but that law would then go for review in front of...the Supreme Court.

The law would go into effect in time that when it is reviewed by the Supreme Court, the justices affected by it would have already been pushed off the court, and new justices might have already been appointed in their place, if it was set to go into effect immediately.

Emergency stays are a thing.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Logically, it seems like it implies lifetime tenure. I imagine a clever Congress might try to subvert that, but that law would then go for review in front of...the Supreme Court.

The law would go into effect in time that when it is reviewed by the Supreme Court, the justices affected by it would have already been pushed off the court, and new justices might have already been appointed in their place, if it was set to go into effect immediately.

Emergency stays are a thing.

One cannot vote for an emergency stay if they were already removed from the court instantly when the law was passed.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Logically, it seems like it implies lifetime tenure. I imagine a clever Congress might try to subvert that, but that law would then go for review in front of...the Supreme Court.

The law would go into effect in time that when it is reviewed by the Supreme Court, the justices affected by it would have already been pushed off the court, and new justices might have already been appointed in their place, if it was set to go into effect immediately.

Emergency stays are a thing.

One cannot vote for an emergency stay if they were already removed from the court instantly when the law was passed.

I mean, this whole policy proposal (not the OP, your nonsense) is part of some dystopian coup fanfic, but the mechanics of this make no sense. For one thing, retroactive laws are explicitly unconstitutional. Assuming the constitution is in effect, the ticking clock of a one-year term would begin when the law was signed into effect, and would then be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court.

Once again: