r/PoursTea • u/Queasy-Secret-4287 • Sep 03 '26
Not My Cup Of Tea❗️ 9 people should not have control of the lives of hundreds of millions
65
u/2ndSmrtestPersunEvar Sep 03 '26
It probably seemed like a really good idea when the founding fathers didn’t know just how stupid and corrupt our future president(s) would be.
26
u/MulzStridor Sep 03 '26
They also expected people to live only to 40.
→ More replies (11)17
u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 03 '26
They didn’t generally die at 40 but when they went, it was generally fast. People didn’t linger for years with dementia etc.
→ More replies (8)2
u/w0ndernine Sep 03 '26
Didn’t think they had an idea about that, considering all they had to deal with from the crown?
2
u/Leprechaun_lord Sep 04 '26
Also, the founding fathers didn’t give SCOTUS the extreme discretion they enjoy today to reinterpret laws to suit their political allegiance. SCOTUS gave themselves that authority (for better or for worse) in Marbury v. Madison
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)2
u/MuffinSpecial 29d ago
Those guys who said only white land owning males could vote and owned slaves?
→ More replies (1)
20
Sep 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/NocturnaBride Sep 03 '26
Don’t forget to put term limits on everyone. Half the issue is lifetime appointments.
6
u/FriendZone53 Sep 03 '26
Let’s start with mandatory retirement at 65 for all government officials. Theoretically the pubic could grow a brain and stop voting in incumbents.
→ More replies (33)→ More replies (3)3
u/Sufficient-Term-9667 Sep 03 '26
Move everything to two ten year terms (house, senate, presidency). Max number of terms 2. Minimum age to serve 30, max age to run 50. Mandatory retirement at 70.
4
u/Sufficient-Term-9667 Sep 03 '26
All Territories of the US should be converted to states. That would be an additional 5 states with DC being the 6th state. You would add probably around 8 house members and 12 senators.
→ More replies (30)2
u/robyrob Sep 03 '26
Need to have a requirement to fill a vacant seat within a reasonable timeframe and they should have some minimum requirements and be able to answer questions from congress before being appointed - and - there should be a limit on the number of justices appointed by one president
2
u/chiclets5 29d ago
There should also be a limit on how many pardons a president can give as well!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (80)2
14
u/hullabaloo369 Sep 03 '26
Especially when 6 are corrupt
4
u/CriticalDig9938 Sep 04 '26
What makes you think that 80 judges couldn't be corrupt or corrupted? The number of justices isn't the problem, the problem lies within our government as a whole. We the people, generations of us, have failed to make the government accountable for their actions.
2
→ More replies (4)2
2
→ More replies (59)2
6
u/thewalruscandyman Sep 03 '26
For it to be fair, or as fair as such an entity can be, there should be an equal number, say six of each. Six conservative judges and six liberals. Any ruling would require someone from the opposite side agree with the other.
We should get to vote on who holds the seat every four years.
And they should never rule on the executive branch- we should. Punishment and removal, extention of authority, immunties...it should all be put to public vote concerning the executive branch.
3
u/TitanicDays Sep 03 '26
One word for you: Apathy.
90 mil didn’t bother to vote - expecting them to actively participate in something like this?
2
u/thewalruscandyman Sep 03 '26
Eventually, yes. Simply because this apathy is relatively new. Conservatives and Republicans have long pushed that narrative. That it doesn't matter. That both sides are the same. It's all to dissuade people from voting. And it worked. Only because we let it. There was a time when people had to fight for the right to vote, and now that it's looking like we'll be doing that again and it will snap some people out of it.
Do I expect them to participate? You can bet your bottom dollar I do.
→ More replies (8)3
u/FLSteve11 Sep 03 '26
How about we do rulings based on legal doctrine rather then political biases.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Joey271828 27d ago
Reddit doesn't want that. They aren't anti corruption, they just want the corruption to favor them
2
u/Panic-Embarrassed Sep 03 '26
Ideally political views don't inform the decision. They should be solely on the letter of the law and constitution.
→ More replies (9)2
u/InitialAd8795 29d ago
I’ve always wondered why we even collect approval ratings. Like who the fuck cares if his approval rating is in the toilet? It would only really matter if we had a system like this, where the public did have the power to remove your ass from office.
→ More replies (15)2
u/CalmCephalopod 29d ago
Unfortunately how do you control who’s a liberal and conservative. If everyone is lifetime appointed they can be bought or swayed.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/Hysteria625 Sep 03 '26
This is all due to Mitch McConnell. He’s wanted to have conservatives controlling the Supreme Court for decades, because if you can have your people as the referees, then all the disputes will be settled in your favor.
Remember, he invoked the nuclear option in 2017 to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court: https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
This is AFTER he blocked Merrick Garland’s hearing, and McConnell hasn’t been shy about letting people know it was a thinly-veiled excuse to pack the court. After Gorsuch was Kavanaugh and Barrett, and with that the GOP has a 6-3 majority that, barring any change, will last for decades, happily rewriting laws to suit conservatives, stare decisis be damned. In the meantime, Democrats got…a black woman on the Supreme Court under Biden! What a banner day for Democracy! What a wonderful gesture that is currently meaningless, but might pay off in 10-20 years if and when Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito step down, providing that Democrats have control of the Presidency and the Senate. Better get out there and vote, kids!
What Democrats need to do is expand the court and rebalance it. Expand the court to 13 to match the number of districts, then bring up hard-line liberals on the court. If Republicans won’t vote for them, tough. Keep sending in liberal Supreme Court picks, because Republicans would never compromise on their picks, so neither should Democrats. It’s high time for Democrats to stop pretending that Republicans even remotely care about the rules. They proved that when they fell in line behind Trump.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks Sep 03 '26
Especially not when I am certain at least two of them have intentionally shoved alcohol in their ass
3
u/LDarrell Sep 03 '26
There is only 1 person in the White House and that person has control over the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Now, technically that person is controlled by the members of Congress, but at the moment the members in control of Congress seem not to be interested in exercising that control.
2
3
u/Careful-Wall1556 Sep 03 '26
This is what happens when MAGA Republicans like Leonard Leo recruit right wing sycophants to sit on the court. They’re Christian nationalists and they have corrupted the system.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/goodness-gracious-me Sep 03 '26
Laws need to be decided. Whether it was nine, two, or 50 (one for each state) there needs to be an ultimate arbiter of laws (separate from other government bodies).
Lifetime appointments are supposed to limit the possibility of influence from outside parties. Once a justice is in, they don’t need to worry about reelection, appeasing the people that appointed them, or fear retribution (like being removed) as a means of influencing decisions.
This specific group of Supreme Court justices is a blight on the progress of the United States towards an inclusive society. That doesn’t mean the function and structure of the Supreme Court is flawed.
As shite as it seems, democracy means sometimes the other side gets its way. How many pro lifers were enraged by Roe vs Wade? They had to endure women having their right to bodily autonomy constitutionally protected. Now, the tables have turned and it’s the people on the side of progress who have to suffer.
The tables will turn again. At some point, progress will win. In the long run, it always does. There will be backlash and whining by those who want to hang onto a past that’s best left in the past. We just have to keep hope alive.
3
u/DanimalHarambe Sep 03 '26
Unelected... Lifetime appointments... Didn't we have pretty strong opinions about those things 250 years ago?
9
u/LaughterB Sep 03 '26
Correction, 9 inept people
4
u/OpeningHappy9692 Sep 03 '26
Oh, no. They're not inept, they're good at what they do.
It's just that what they do is be hella corrupt.
4
u/TheLastWord63 Sep 03 '26
9 inept? There's one person who always votes on the right side of the law.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/Snoo93550 Sep 03 '26
It’s just an extension of the senate and the senate is set up to favor old scared rural white voters intentionally.
They need to reform senate confirmation process Mitch broke.
2
u/red_smeg Sep 03 '26
Especially when they are now, self admittedly, taking millions in payments from billionaires !!!
2
u/Mex48 Sep 03 '26
They should be neutral, but it's so obvious they take their own politics when they make decisions., that's not how it should be.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/NikkiSeCT Sep 03 '26
The whole concept behind the judicial branch, and specifically the Supreme Court, was that it would be as apolitical as possible. That changed with Mitch McConnell sabotaging Obama’s appointment and Trump putting three cronies. Absent getting them to resign or removed for cause, the only other solution would be to add to the number of judges to neutralize the corruption.
2
2
u/HotwifeandSubby1980 Sep 03 '26
Really it’s not 9, it’s 5.
All it takes is 5 people in America to decide how the other 320 million are affected.
Ridiculous
2
u/shadowsofplatoscave Sep 03 '26
Especially not a majority of which are religiously indoctrinated and science deniers! We need impartial critical thinkers, regardless of personal beliefs!!
→ More replies (2)
2
u/MulzStridor Sep 03 '26
Nah. I’m not that worried about death age from 200 years ago. You lot can bicker over that. It’s negligible information.
2
2
u/BohemianMade Sep 04 '26
The fact that these are lifetime appointments, that alone is absolutely insane.
2
2
u/Dangerous_Thing_3270 Sep 05 '26
If you think they “control” the lives of hundreds of millions, you clearly don’t understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. “Control” lay with the executive and legislative branches.
2
u/InternalSecretary969 29d ago
Right some of you cant even agree a lady that offed three kids should go to jail.
7
u/JoeBagANachos Sep 03 '26
FACTS!!!! ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT
→ More replies (3)5
u/SnooMaps7370 Sep 03 '26
the concept of a supreme court is a good one, the appeals process has to terminate somewhere, after all.
but the way we manage ours is bad. Not enough bodies on the court, and not enough protections to keep bad actors within the court from causing harm.
IMO, the court should be expanded to at least 3x its current size, and justices for each case before the court should be randomly selected from among that number. make 'em all throw a D20 to see who takes which cases.
→ More replies (3)3
2
3
u/France_lover_10011 Sep 03 '26
Especially the 5 white men.
5
3
u/rafibomb56 Sep 03 '26
Yeah, there should be more DEI hires like the last one, right?
→ More replies (1)2
3
→ More replies (3)2
u/Ididntdodiddly Sep 03 '26
White men founded the country. Yes, they should have large representation. What an anglophobe
2
u/IS-21 Sep 03 '26
It really wasn’t the smartest idea to have these positions be for life I understand the logic behind it but it really doesn’t survive contact when the people sworn in can just do whatever until they die like definitely reform and expansion is needed
2
u/AnAnonymous121 Sep 03 '26
Justices at the Supreme Court should be voted in, not personally appointed by the Supreme Leader king of the land. It severely weakens the separation of power in a country that is severely politicized and polarized.
Justices should also have terms, like any elected official. Having a bad apple serve for life is ridiculous. It severely weakens the institution's ability to be impartial in a extremely politicized and polarized country.
This is common sense. Any country that follows a federal supreme court with unelected justices who serve for life are extremely vulnerable to what's happening in Nazi USA
2
u/Enzo_Gorlomi225 Sep 03 '26
That would have the opposite effect of what you want….it would make the court way more political…
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)2
u/StuffSufficient954 Sep 03 '26
No they should not. The Supreme Court Justices should never be done like that. Once they are appointed they need to be independent of voting base to ensure they interpret the law fairly. Just because they don't always interpret it the way you want doesn't mean they are not doing their job.
→ More replies (2)
2
1
1
u/MAILBOXHED Sep 03 '26
Let’s have a convention of the states then. But I don’t think some of you complaining will really like it.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jolly_Life1838 Sep 03 '26
there is a process for it already....never been done though.
constitutional amendment could theoretically:
- Restructure the Court
- Change how justices are selected
- Impose term limits
- Alter jurisdiction
But amendments require:
- 2/3 of Congress and
- 3/4 of states
1
1
u/Emotional_Fisherman8 Sep 03 '26
Some of the most fucked up rulings were millions of people suffered for years but also some rulings that made things right. Now, we're backsliding back to those darker times because of a few within these 9 people
1
1
u/Indigenous_Land Sep 03 '26
Three in the middle up front should retire for the betterment of the country, after Nov. 28.
1
1
1
u/Ididntdodiddly Sep 03 '26
Wait until OP discovers how hierarchies and leadership forms in every government around the world
1
1
u/OffToRaces Sep 03 '26
And yet, that’s exactly what the U.S. Constitution says. Did you have an amendment to propose?
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/JustToyingAround73 Sep 03 '26
Especially when six of those nine are in the pocket of one current and extremely corrupt president.
1
1
u/darkrhyes Sep 03 '26
I say again that it should be an even split if we are going to use ideology in the court. And if a case is 50/50, then it is undecided. Lower court ruling stands.
1
1
u/ogar78 Sep 03 '26
Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist. A sensible system would rotate justices out, maybe having the most senior justice retire every two years. I’d even support some form of direct vote rather than relying entirely on presidential appointments.
As for the argument that the Court doesn't "control" our lives, that ignores how it actually works. While I disagree with many of their rulings, their job is to interpret the law. If the majority of the country dislikes how a law is being interpreted, the real solution is to hold Congress accountable and demand they pass clear, straightforward legislation instead of using legislation to pass pet projects and creating word salad legislation
1
1
1
1
u/soxperry Sep 03 '26
Voters don’t care about holding the Constitution sacred because it’s so ineffective at this point. They just want things done so there is more money in their pocket and better opportunities for their family. These 9 chucklefucks are in the way, so either help the people or we will add people who will.
1
u/robyrob Sep 03 '26
Especially 9 people continuously taking bribes from billionaires and special interests, and completely ignoring the constitution, the law and common sense just to please their masters
1
u/rygelicus Sep 03 '26
The number isn't the problem, it's their immunity to corrective actions when they violate the laws and ethics and their lifetime appointments.
1
u/lumbardisaster23 Sep 03 '26
The next Democratic president should appoint four more SCOTUS justices. Either that, or a process should be put in place that will facilitate the removal of justices who have taken money, trips, or benefits of any kind from corporations or people affected by SCOTUS decisions.
1
1
1
u/tristand666 Sep 03 '26
Nine political appointees that rule based on their personal political beliefs should not even be a thing.
1
u/6942dantheman Sep 03 '26
No. They shouldn't be legislating from the bench. All they should do is rule on whether a law is constitutional or not. If not, send it back to be fixed or just gotten rid of.
1
1
u/Strange_Ad1714 Sep 03 '26
The 6 are corrupted. No Republicans at any level of government and f maga
1
u/argusmanargus Sep 03 '26
Whatever you're feeling now, tomorrow is a new day. Aspiring to be a Justice is far better than judging them or the whole institution from afar.
1
u/tonylouis1337 Sep 03 '26
Well part of why our country is amazing is because of the 3 branches of government, which the Supreme Court is one of. Add to that the notion that we don't wanna expand the size of government institutions. So yeah idk
1
u/Ill_Inside2245 Sep 03 '26
You would probably not make that statement if their decisions were to your liking
1
u/MWBurbman Sep 03 '26
I think a bigger problem is the voting power of someone in Montana compared to California. The senate has a minority of people dictating that legislative branch for the majority.
1
1
1
u/Soggy-Raspberry-1524 Sep 03 '26
Technically, they only have that power because Congress lets them. The Constitution built checks and balances to prevent 9 unelected judges from running the country, but lawmakers are too spineless to use them.
Instead of keeping the judiciary in check, the majority in power defers to a 6-justice bloc that consistently falls in line behind the orange clown.
1
Sep 03 '26
Well the United States was founded on the principle that Government should be run by a "Consensus or Reasonable Men" according to Hamilton, Adams and Pickering. If we change "men" to people to avoid feeling misogynistic then that previous statement would apply to the current court system whereby a consensus of "people" would define and control our lives and protect us from our own bad decisions in the quintessential Nanny State. So SCOTUS is doing what it is supposed to do according to our Founding Mothers/Fathers...aka telling us to do and protecting us from the dangers of too much liberty.
To change this we would first have to challenge the concept of "reasonable men (people)" controlling our lives from birth until death and after death in terms of the Death Tax and Cemetary Rules that exclude and prevent First Nations Traditional Burial Rituals.
But I see no one doing this challenge. It would require a presidential candidate to do so and for he/she/they/them/zer to figure out policies that would meaningfully challenge the concept
1
u/DBDude Sep 03 '26
They don't. They have some control to limit what the rest of the government does to our lives.
1
u/Tough-Interaction468 Sep 03 '26
If it goes your way, you're happy. If not, you call the system rigged. Get over it. We put up with 8 years of Obama and 4 of Brandon... no one was bitching when we were locked down for 3 years... or the huge crash of 2008 (which you'll probably blame one someone else... hahah..)
1
u/Exciting-Cat-7556 Sep 03 '26
They don’t. Anything they decide can be overridden by Congress. Therein lies the problem.
1
u/COMOJoeSchmo Sep 03 '26
They don't. They decide the validity of laws within the strict framework of a written Constitution.
The problem isn't with the courts, it's with the legislative and executive branches that like to do unconstitutional things.
1
1
u/Qualmeister Sep 03 '26
Make it 19! Then no one president could appoint enough judges to shift the majority during his presidency.
1
u/Technical_Visit_1424 Sep 03 '26
Puestos para cumplir los deseos de un presidente, no de un pueblo o por sus méritos
1
1
u/Defiant_Freedom_249 Sep 03 '26
Especially when they are corrupt and make decisions based on the briber who offers them the most money, not what is justice for the people.
1
u/JJHotcakes2020 Sep 03 '26
It's worse that One lower court judge decides on their own they don't like something the President does and puts out a ruling affecting 300 million people.
1
1
u/Stelliferous19 Sep 03 '26
Expand it to 13 the first chance you get and pack it with liberals. And introduce term limits. My God how is this a lifetime gig. Age is a factor people. Look at the lest two dementia riddled presidents!!!
1
u/short-tall-man Sep 03 '26
They don't have control of millions of people's lives. They have control of the people in Washington DC trying to control every aspect of your life.
1
u/JoeDante84 Sep 03 '26
Yes let us blow up one of the three branches of government. Genius position.
1
u/TechnicalWhore Sep 03 '26
Its only six - very carefully groomed and positioned people you are concerned about. Vergogna!
1
1
1
1
1
u/Haunting-Context1735 Sep 03 '26
Especially not the ones elected by a felon. I’ll vote for what ever politician puts this on a ballot. If you’re a felon, you can’t be president. I think most people would vote for it. How hard is that?
1
u/BreakImaginary1661 Sep 03 '26
What if we did a moving number of justices that reflects the population of the US? The more the population grows, the more judicial representation the people get. Probably not a realistic approach but we definitely need more people having a say in the interpretation of the laws governing hundreds of millions of people.
1
1
u/jdavid Sep 03 '26
Every session of congress ( 2-years ) we should add one SCOTUS to the court no matter what.
It's already constitutional, no amendment needed. A simple 51-49 vote is needed in the Senate to make this law, and 50%+1 in the House of Representatives.
Over time this would likely grow the court to many more people than 9. With an average life expectancy of 80, and nomination age dropping to 40, that would mean the average court size would be 20. If lifespan grew to 100, and nomination age dropped to 30, then that would be 35 justices.
I think having between 9-35 justices is just fine.
Here are the advantages.
* it pushes SCOTUS towards the current 2-year opinion majority in the country.
* it will stabilize the courts opinion by having more people on it
* it will encourage politicians to nominate younger justices ( new thinking )
* justices will likely span more generations
* no need to amend the constitution for 'old justices' as they will become very out numbered by young healthy justices, and their vote will be less likely a 'key deciding vote.' I think they will trend more towards retirement when health is an issue, since each justice will have a 1/20th -> 1/35th voting power.
* it will make it harder to tailor an argument to 4+1 justices, a court of 20-35 people will respond to a broader number of arguments, and arguments will need to trend towards more centrist viewpoints to win.
* it will make SCOTUS feel less like a political power grab, since it will become much more difficult to add '3-4 justices' and gain full control of the court in one admin.
* it will normalize EVERY president getting 2 justices
* it will normalize no president getting 3 justices ever again
* if a president won two elections and got 2 justices, 2 of 20, or 2 of 35 justices would not completely swing the court
* it makes it harder for a president to 'influence the court' in a big swing
* it prevents congress from withholding a president/congress from electing a SCOTUS.
* it makes SCOTUS boring and routine
* it means "EVERY PRESIDENT" gets 2 SCOTUS choices.
I would add one rule here, if Congress does not approve a SCOTUS in their session, then a national election can be held for a member of SCOTUS. So if congress tries to withhold a president from placing a SCOTUS, then the Nation can vote on which SCOTUS to add instead of congress, as congress has then abdicated it's duty, and the citizens should take on that duty.
I think this is a non-partisan solution to the current issues at hand. It doesn't provide a huge power swing to any one party and it drives SCOTUS to a more average ruling over more Justice Opinions.
Sure congress could play games still:
* politically push one party for 'older justices' ( this would trend to how it is now )
* politically push for justices with longer expected lifespans
* stall and force a national vote on the Justice delaying a justice to the court by up to 23 months, but this would only result in a 1/20th or less effect on political power, so they may burn more political capital than it's worth by attempting to de-normalize SCOTUS selection.
To me this is the most fair solution, and does not entrench democrats or republicans forever, as other parties could have an opportunity to win a justice seat. I don't think we should entrench political parties even further into our constitution.
1
1
u/ehoffman56 Sep 03 '26
Historically, these have been somewhat reasonable people, but with trumps appointments we are faced with an situation that has made judicial reform more reasonable sounding than ever…
1
1
u/Wandered_And_Lost Sep 03 '26
Especially proven corrupt pieces of shit like that fucking Uncle Tom and that other kiddy Diddler
1
u/Legitimate-You6466 Sep 03 '26
So many comments in here from people who doesn’t have a clue. Try to learn the structure and function of a democratic system
→ More replies (1)
1
u/tlm11110 Unpopular Opinions Sep 03 '26
They don’t, they interpret cases that are brought to them as they pertain to the Constitution. They hear maybe 100-150 of the 7000-8000 cases presented to them. Considering the total cases filed in the US, the Supreme Court hears a minuscule tiny tiny percentage of them. They just get more press than the rest.
Your Congress and the lower courts have much much much more influence on your life than the Supreme Court. If your representatives very carefully enact good laws, they will never see the inside of a cortroom, let alone lone the Supreme Court.
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final," written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in his 1953 opinion for Brown v. Allen
1
u/FloridaGatorAlum Sep 03 '26
Especially those who have BLATANTLY abused power without shame because there are zero consequences for SCOTUS.
1
1
u/Nice_Background6633 Sep 03 '26
Try going somewhere where one person controls the lives of hundreds of millions.
1
u/AwardMinute8052 Sep 03 '26
They don’t have control, they have a mandate to interpret legal standing for cases brought before them. Only congress has the ability to legislate and they are elected by the people. The Supreme Court reads laws and determines if things brought before them have legal standing. Conservatives tend to take an originalist view of the constitution and interpret laws through how they were originally thought to mean. Most liberal justices try to apply their modern interpretation based on standards today (which in my view is closer to legislating than adjudication).
The funny thing is many liberals liked RBG, but even she had an issue with Roe v. Wade because it went too far and relied on shaky constitutional standing (another way of saying it was not the correct interpretation of law). She was very much pro-choice but she realized that the constitution didn’t really offer legal standing to go as far as it did, and rather thought legislation should be passed (which is not the role of the Supreme Court). I know many were unhappy with the reversal of Roe v. Wade but i think the outcome was closer to what RBG felt from a legal standpoint. The court did strike down some of the more extreme cases brought before it in the aftermath of the reversal but the reality is that is should be a state issue unless congress decides to legislate something.
All this is to say I don’t think the argument holds up. And if it were left leaning justices filling the majority I doubt you would feel the same way. That makes it hypocritical to attack them and you know it.
1
1
1
u/Elegant-Newspaper449 Sep 03 '26
How many is enough? 9 is just a number. Should it be 13? How about 33? It really shouldn't matter if they are actually writing opinions on the case before them from a strict, original interpretation of the Constitution.
1
1
u/ExtendoArmCannon Sep 03 '26
Remember how you guys wanted to put more people into this court?
Get some consistency about your values instead of simply flip-flopping based on who is in government.
1
223
u/Connect-Will2011 Sep 03 '26
Nor should they have lifetime appointments.