> What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position
I think you mean political appointment.
The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit).
> will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term.
That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
I think you mean political appointment.
The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit).
> will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term.
That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.