Term Limit for SCOTUS?

[hermosabeach]

I was having a discussion with friends about why SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment.

Vote and decide honestly without worring about facing political backlash.

With one of the members being older than Abe Lincoln, we were discussing either a term limit - say 20 years or an age cap- say 70 or 75.

I love my relatives- I love my parents- but there is a reason why there are elder abuse laws to prevent younger people preying on older folks who are out of touch with the modern world.


What would be the draw back to either a maximum term or an age cap?

 

[ArmyJerry]

well it would be against the constitution. I am for defanging the rolde of the courts but voting them in would bring us closer to a democracy, I dont want judgs worried about the election i want judges that understand the Constitution, even now only 3 or 4 actually do that.

 

[Rthur]

I'd start in other places first...

R

 

[Smoov82]

I’m with ArmyJerry! I wouldn’t watch judges putting their time and effort into being re-elected.

 

[quietmike]

Under article 3 section 2 congress has power over the courts. Stripping power from the federal courts would send a message to scotus. If RGB can't stay awake through a case, she should be impeached.

 

[2ndamendfan]

I understand lifetime appointment. I don't understand the need or want to stay on into your 70's+ must be a pretty good job. RGB definitely needs to retire.

 

[Unknown]

Army Jerry got it right. The whole reason Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected is so they DON'T have to worry about elections once they are appointed. They are SUPPOSED to be above political party nonsense, and should have proven themselves and their judgement prior to being appointed to the court.

With that said, an age limit would be a good idea if it weren't unconstitutional. An age limit of 75 years, or perhaps a re-evaluation of whether the senate wants them to continue on the court would be a good idea, kind of like a second confirmation hearing...again, if it weren't unconstitutional.

 

[pmclaine]

I’m with ArmyJerry! I wouldn’t watch judges putting their time and effort into being re-elected.

what would they be promising for the robe?

 

[pmclaine]

Army Jerry got it right. The whole reason Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected is so they DON'T have to worry about elections once they are appointed. They are SUPPOSED to be above political party nonsense, and should have proven themselves and their judgement prior to being appointed to the court.

With that said, an age limit would be a good idea if it weren't unconstitutional. An age limit of 75 years, or perhaps a re-evaluation of whether the senate wants them to continue on the court would be a good idea, kind of like a second confirmation hearing...again, if it weren't unconstitutional.

Every time a party held all three branches there would be reviews and the other parties picks would be tossed.

 

[PolarisBreach]

There are already controls in place to remove a judge that can't fulfill their responsibilities. Unfortunately, those who have the power to enact those controls are cowards. Screw term or age limits - the fact that RBG can fall asleep on the job (which she has) and not be immediately subject to articles of impeachment is a crime itself.

 

[Threadcutter308]

Army Jerry got it right. The whole reason Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected is so they DON'T have to worry about elections once they are appointed. They are SUPPOSED to be above political party nonsense, and should have proven themselves and their judgement prior to being appointed to the court.

With that said, an age limit would be a good idea if it weren't unconstitutional. An age limit of 75 years, or perhaps a re-evaluation of whether the senate wants them to continue on the court would be a good idea, kind of like a second confirmation hearing...again, if it weren't unconstitutional.

With you most of the way. Ponder this though; Fast forward 20 or 25 years. Would you want a 75 year old Brett Kavenaugh subjected to "re-evaluation" by the "senate" ? Their conduct last week would probably kill any judge that was 75 years old and subject to that horseshit. If anything, I'd like to see Senators and Congressmen subjected to re-evaluation. I guess that's what elections are for. If it's so great though, why do we still have Party Murray and Maria Canttell ? Maybe the evaluators need to be evaluated......

I'm thinkin' leave it at lifetime and call it good. Doesn't create any new problems and maintains status quo where it is needed. We've suffered through the worst of RBG and Sotomayer. Or, at least, what I understand of Sotomayor's health problems.

 

[pmclaine]

Problem is everyone is accepting of status quo and factions that are supposed to be in opposition end up going along so as not to threaten anyones job.

I never understood Jefferson's "Revolution from time to time is good" as I thought why would he want to see what he worked so hard for be destroyed.

As typical their intellect greatly exceeds mine and what he meant was we have to turn out the fat, dumb, complacent people that will naturally put themselves ahead of country with enough time in the miasma that is power politics.

The Revolution Jefferson dreamed of were periodic resets that reminded who worked for who.

Jeffersons Revolutions were small blips that kept the immune system of politics strong and eliminated threats to the People.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Problem is everyone is accepting of status quo and factions that are supposed to be in opposition end up going along so as not to threaten anyones job.

I never understood Jefferson's "Revolution from time to time is good" as I thought why would he want to see what he worked so hard for be destroyed.

As typical their intellect greatly exceeds mine and what he meant was we have to turn out the fat, dumb, complacent people that will naturally put themselves ahead of country with enough time in the miasma that is power politics.

The Revolution Jefferson dreamed of were periodic resets that reminded who worked for who.

Jeffersons Revolutions were small blips that kept the immune system of politics strong and eliminated threats to the People.

The more time that passes between "blips" the bigger each "blip" must be.

 

[ken4570tc in WY]

A lot already said, but term or maximum age limits doesn't mean elected. The constitution can be amended to retire the old farts who look to be in worse shape than the bodies of our deceased presidents and still protect them from the undue pressures of politics. I for one would get behind such a change to include strict rules on what the Senate can bring up at these hearings. If an allegation doesn't have a filed criminal complaint in a recognized domestic jurisdiction within x number of years it should be off the table - no discussions and if a Senator attempts to violate that rule he/she be subject to immediate removal from the committee. Further more, no more opportunities to grandstand on live television, all questioning involving personal conduct to be done in private session. Any or all public salacious comments by Senators would also be grounds for removal of that Senator from the committee. They can keep such things in private chambers. Even if guilty, no one's loved ones should have to fear the shame or ridicule that comes from such things made public, true or false. The Dems have shown no sense of reason or common decency. Everyone with a 'D' next to their name on the voter registrations around the country should be ashamed. Now I have to go check my blood pressure!

 

[W54/XM-388]

The issue is not so much a problem with the judges, but a problem with our congress critters, senators and other politicians.
They all want to avoid doing their actual jobs and instead play politics and try to do as little actual work as possible.
The congress critters basically want the courts to take care of doing their jobs and make new "laws" that they can't or won't do.
Battles that should be being fought out in congress and by direct public debate and voting are instead being fought in the courts with each side wanting to make sure they have the judges they need for the battles.

If our politicians weren't such disreputable folk with no respect for the constitution this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

I would suggest that at this point, don't bother trying to see about any constitutional changes. I'm pretty sure there is enough hate on all sides that you wouldn't get anything passed by a wide enough majority, no matter how useful.

 

[ken4570tc in WY]

The issue is not so much a problem with the judges, but a problem with our congress critters, senators and other politicians.
They all want to avoid doing their actual jobs and instead play politics and try to do as little actual work as possible.
The congress critters basically want the courts to take care of doing their jobs and make new "laws" that they can't or won't do.
Battles that should be being fought out in congress and by direct public debate and voting are instead being fought in the courts with each side wanting to make sure they have the judges they need for the battles.

If our politicians weren't such disreputable folk with no respect for the constitution this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

I would suggest that at this point, don't bother trying to see about any constitutional changes. I'm pretty sure there is enough hate on all sides that you wouldn't get anything passed by a wide enough majority, no matter how useful.

You're probably right but I'm too old, too fat and too slow to participate in a shooting revolution. I'm considering donating my old camo and having my wife sew me something that looks like a boulder which more closely resembles my shape, speed and age.

 

[olive drab]

Its all Federal Judges except for the Magistrates which I think have an 8 year appointment. Its supposed to make them non-partisan and at the district courts it works fairly well. Ive met some dinosaurs over the years who needed to retire, but its one of the perfect gov jobs where you control your schedule and no one messes with you, so why leave that? If any judge is acting senile or is not cognizant then they should be impeached from their position. Term limits are probably better served for Congress, but those clowns wont be voluntarily shortening their careers in my lifetime.