• Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Maybe it would be better to just put people in there for 15 years or so? Longer than the 8 years for one president at minimum, but NOT FOR FUCKING LIFE. Unchecked power breeds corruption. It was always dependent on the good will of the judges and that is not something a country should bank on in the long term.

    • detren@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah that’s what most other constitutional tribunals do I think. In Poland for example it’s a 15 year term so even though the court is packed with unconstitutional judges they have to go away soon anyway.

      • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean I do find it funny in a way: they decided they didn’t want to be ruled over by a king for life, but then decided for the supreme court: ah fuck it, don’t want to bother selecting new guys every decade. Make it for life, just like the king we just seceded from.

          • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Well, but at least terms of set lengths. That was already progress.

            I would wish certain positions in my country, Germany, also had term limits. I haven’t yet have a chancellor in my whole life where I thought: oh yes, please more of that. But others disagree and so we got in our history since 1945 3 chancellors with 4 terms. =( we call other countries backwards for having presidents hold on to positions…