What are the mechanics of changing the a US Supreme Court Justice's term

[BigT]

@Northern_Piper

Ex necessitate principle comes into play. There has to be someone to decide a case. If everyone has the same potential bias, then someone has to do it.

I was going to say that other judges could do it, but it’s kinda in their vested interest to support is so that more judges become Supreme Court justices.

Still, there’s one other option: what about Congress’s power to state that a law is above judicial review altogether?

If there’s any type of law where adding that clause wouldn’t be a slippery slope (which is the main reason I understand that Congress tends to not use this power), it would be one that’s actually about the judges.

[Northern_Piper]

@BigT

what about Congress’s power to state that a law is above judicial review altogether?

See this thread for a discussion:

Could congress prevent SCOTUS from invalidating laws?

Here is a clause in the constitution concerning SCOTUS. The previous sentence refers to cases where the court has original jurisdiction. My question is could congress simply remove the court’s jurisdiction over acts of congress? I point out that the court’s right to do so is somewhat watery. As far as I can tell it rests solely on the phrase “In Pursuance thereof” in thesupremacy clause:

[TriPolar]

We wouldn’t be able to promote any existing judges for the next couple of decades because every one of them sitting at the bench now is a political hack. And all of them will be for quite some time if the amendment doesn’t apply to all judges.

Not that prior experience on the bench is all that necessary or even desired. I do heartily agree with your idea, but there’s zero chance of it being implemented.