3 ms·
Sure? No. But the idea isn't completely ridiculous. We already allow Supremes to "retire" as senior judges (where they sit on lower benches - O'Connor did thi
by alistairSH 4y ago
Sure? No. But the idea isn't completely ridiculous. We already allow Supremes to "retire" as senior judges (where they sit on lower benches - O'Connor did this, IIRC). The proposal to enforce this after some term of service is just an extension of the idea. It basically interprets "their Offices" to mean "office of federal jurist" as opposed to the specific role to which the judge was appointed.
- gameman144 4y agoI'm not sure this would hold up to scrutiny, as the office of Supreme Court Justice and federal judge are different offices. The extreme version of this is that we'd obviously not get away with interpreting their office to be "civil servant"and shuffling them off to the DMV.
- alistairSH 4y agoDifferent offices, but the process for a Supreme to retire and move to "normal federal judge" already exists - no re-confirmation or other antics required. Of course, SCOTUS would end up being the ultimate arbiter here, so quite likely a non-starter for that reason alone.