I understand that. I guess I just don't understand why that would be a realistic worry, or an argument against having term limits, any more than "you could appoint 10,000 Justices" is (and I assume everyone agrees the latter would be constitutional)
I don't see the argument you are making here. It is probably right that Congress could set a term of its choice, not just 18 years. But what would it mean to say "one minute" is the term? There still is a Court with a set number of Justices (set by Congress, btw) that has to decide cases, right?
I don't understand what's remotely inconsistent between a statute creating 18-year terms and a requirement that Congress not eliminate the SCOTUS altogether.
My first reaction to this was DUH, but then I put on my nicer person hat because I’m glad this research exists to back up the obvious anecdotal observation that we live in an age of monopolies, some in fact and some, as with those sharing board directors, in practice.
It's a per se antitrust violation
News on my study with Lane Miles and @vanloo.bsky.social
law.stanford.edu/press/award-...
I always wondered why the Pan-American highway just stops for miles in the middle of the harshest jungle. Turns out it's a giant screwworm defense barrier