535
US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
535 points (99.3% liked)
politics
23679 readers
2449 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I personally don't like it, but that is because I am biased in favor of popular public voting and a term that is a decade long, plus age limits. IMO, we want our representatives in all branches to have a relatively short shelf life, so that they can change with the times. Justices were given life terms to insulate them from the need to defend their office and politics, but I have the impression that modern life moves too quickly for the timespan you proposed. The internet has more or less been around for 40 years, and much has changed in technology and society within that time frame.
To me, the ideal term and age cap is 10 and 50 years, respectively. While a 51+ year person would almost certainly still have a sound mind, they would likely have difficulty when it comes to relating with the younger members of society. Say, for example, sexting. We have (stupid) laws that treat minors as creators of CP pornography when they share dick pictures with each other, putting them on sex offender registries for life - but they could boink each other in person, and not be charged. This example is an intersection of changing technology and social norms, that an older justice might not grasp.
Anyhow, setting aside my bias: Your concept is fine, and seems to fall within line with how things have traditionally worked. 👍