Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "AOC: SCOTUS Justices Should Face Impeachment If Lying Under Oath" video.

ALL public offices should have a 10-year maximum term limit. Lifetime appointments are outrageous and have no place in a so-called free and civilized society. You know who else has a lifetime appointment? Kings and autocrats. I thought we got beyond that by now. Edit: with possibly successive terms the way we do now, but just like now, said candidate should have to re-run and re-campaign every time if they want another term, with a maximum number of terms enforced (two, four, etc). I also would consider supporting a mandatory interlude between successive terms meaning terms cannot operate back to back. I think that could be a good measure to consider because that would prevent someone from devoting half their term to campaigning for immediate reelection the way they do now with all the pressures that brings, which inevitably leads them to compromise on voting decisions by putting themselves first not the people they were elected to represent; instead of actually trying to focus on whatever job they were elected to do. Granted it's impossible to take the self-interest out of the political sphere entirely, but preventing immediately consecutive terms might be an effective limitation on this behavior. I'm saying might because I don't know for certain but it's something I would definitely consider supporting as a new standard.
412
@devo2 agreed. There's a lot of resistance to it now and certainly those that love their long-term entrenchment aren't going to support any changes to the current rules that would undermine that. But all we can do is continue to spread the word and spread the awareness that these limitations on those who would assume positions of power and control are non-negotiable. And keep trying to force them through. Term limits and maximum number of terms are already in place for many local and state offices, and of course the presidency. We now need them for federal court, congressional and Supreme Court limits. That is what we must have, I believe, to have any chance of having a better government structure that isn't occupied by, of, and for a very narrow elite. I don't believe it'll fix everything but I do believe it's an important step forward to a better form of government that is more accountable to the broader population at large.
2
@luchicholito better than no limits I feel tho.
2
@stonemedia8901 anything less than full direct democracy and fully representational federal and state governance is corrupt and the establishment of rule by the elite at the stark expense of the middle and lower class. If you support that you're some kind of fascist and I don't know why you feel that way.
1
@raybin6873 that's why it's called a goal genius. It doesn't exist today so we work towards it in the future. What's your point?
1