It's pretty amazing how in 2015, I tried to convince the ConCon to adopt a 3-person SCOA (which was what it was prior to the reset) with one-year, staggered terms (i.e. 1 appointment/retention every 4 months): this meant that every President would get to appoint or retain 1 Justice (if not 2, assuming they won two terms as President).
Imagine all of our shock that it was the conservatives (among others!) who shot this idea down, talking about the "integrity of the Court", too much volatility and the need for lifetime appointments. Of course, this was coming out of a years-long period where the conservative/status quo neoliberal dynamic was a constant on the Court.
Also, to echo PiT's sentiments: the Supreme Court is not a place for advancement. It's where old farts end up by design who have ample experience in the game but who don't want to play in the day-to-day minutiae anymore. The arguments that "upward mobility" or whatever some might call it is being stymied is hilarious, because that has literally never been the case with this body nor is the case today. I'm not going to bother running the averages, but 3-5 years on the court for non-flakes is pretty much on par with the entirety of the game's history.
Just be gross, y'all. I never cared to admit doing s[inks]t for political gain. What is truly despicable is when the usual suspects (who've been around far longer than they care to admit, yet call me "old man" or whatever) try to invent some sordid web of excuses when they just wanna be grossly partisan.
Ugh, Jesus. Gross.
