soups_foosington

I’m a democrat but I regard this proposal as beneficial to our side in a way that feels concerning. You state elsewhere that Republican presidents have been able to disproportionately seat justices- but the same could be true for us in the future. Just as McConnell’s interpretation of Advise and Consent and Bush v Gore reinforced the republican sway of the court, I actually think these dynamics are party agnostic- democrats could have done the same things with our own majorities. And it may be true that the founders regarded the construction of the court as “countermajoritarian”, to use your word, just as they did the electoral college. I don’t like that, but it may be the case.

It also feels short sighted in a way- younger justices and term limits would swing the court to the left in obvious ways but that may not actually have a long shelf life.

How do you make a case to people on the right that this is a good idea? And how do you make the case to the left that it’s good for us in the long term? And in a spirit of bipartisanship, How do you make the argument that it really is good for us all? Would term limits reduce the pressure on partisan presidents to pack the court with partisan extremists? Or does that remain a problem?

I went to high school with someone with FOP. I didn’t know them well, but always wanted to ask- what is partying/dating like in your life? How does it affect you socially?

I also wonder if you’ve done an analysis of the popularity or quality-if there can be such a measurement, of justices’ decisions after their 18th year on the bench. Do they lean more to the middle, or to the extreme? Or stay the same? Does age bring wisdom or extremism? Maybe it depends on the person? And do those decisions, regardless of their popularity, improve the health of the country? I like some of RBG and Kennedy’s decisions from their old years, but I also detest some of Thomas’. I wonder what we lose if we lose the decision making of justices after their 18th year.