Life Terms for Supreme Court Justices: Why not 16 years?

[riff]

When you become a Supreme Court Justice, you become a Justice for life.

This smacks of despotism to me. I propose a constitutional ammendment limiting justices to a term of 16 years... after which time, Congress will decide who stays and who goes.

16 years- 4 presidential terms... maybe even 32 if Congress okays it. Is this unreasonable?

 

[Nogard]

Nope, that's why it won't fly

 

[Siren]

It sounds wonderful to me,........

 

[riff]

Nope, that's why it won't fly

May I ask why? As Siren remarked, 16 to 32 years is plenty of time to make an impact on the constitution?

To me a limit of 12 years would be too short. But for life?

Sincerely, I ask you to justify this to me. Why is my proposal unreasonable?

 

[Closet Desire]

The Supreme Court...

...is sometimes the only source of sanity. Life terms ensure continuity across administrations and prevent day-to-day politics from wrecking havoc on life.

As for justices falling asleep or wearing diapers (big deal...wait a couple of decades you'll have friends wearing them), the justices have repeatedly disappointed politicians (ie presidents) who thought their particular appointment would "vote" their way on hot issues like abortion or police power or freedom of speech. Each time, the courts have ruled based more on the Constitution than on what the politicians have wanted.

Personally I sleep a lot better just where they are...even if one of them is asleep.

 

[Siren]

Hell CD, my friends fall asleep on me now and wear diapers.....Hahahaha

 

[riff]

16 years and possibly 32 is not stable?

 

[riff]

A compromise:


18 years. No second term. There- that eliminates politicking for a "second term."

 

[Closet Desire]

A dilemma...

...clever fellas who wrote the founding documents. If Supreme Court justice terms are set by the Constitution, and the legislative and executive branches decide to change it the Supreme Court would throw it out as unconstitutional.

Hmmmm...you could amend the constitution...going rate on that so far is about 100 years....lots of luck! hee hee

Oh...when you get to be the age of a justice 16 years is nothin'.

 

[riff]

Re: A dilemma...

...clever fellas who wrote the founding documents. If Supreme Court justice terms are set by the Constitution, and the legislative and executive branches decide to change it the Supreme Court would throw it out as unconstitutional.

And what if the Constitution is just WRONG in this case? We have admitted it is less than perfect as set out by the founding fathers because we have ammended it in the past. How many Justices of good character (and I don't mean politically viable and sellable character) would say that 18 or even 24 years is unreasonable?

Unless you are a justice who was appointed by a particular party President and you are saying, even though unfit to decide crap, that "I won't resign until a republican/democrat is President because then he will appoint someone agreeable to me."

I am not saying that the exercise of such will is bad- that is the way things are. What I am saying is that there should be a check on this kind of politicization of the court. It's a better idea than what the founding fathers had. A very long term, I say, but a term that ends by constitutional mandate and not one on the grim reaper.

 

[Closet Desire]

Amendments...

...very few amendments have been made and one of those was repealed. It's a long an arduous journey to amend the Constitution and I'm not sure you would ever come close to get the needed support to do it. Whatever short comings the SC has, they are pretty minor ones when you compare the system to that of other major governments. It is a fail-safe that no other system I am aware of has.

As for saying the Constitution is WRONG I'm reminded of a sign we used to see frequently in the shipyard at Newport News. It went something like this...

"If you don't know what it does, don't fuck with it."

The SC is probably the least screwed up of the three branches and, if you think about it, only decides issues when they have gone through a lot of checks.

 

[riff]

What you say is true. And I the term limits I propose are quite generous.

So why life? I understand the great wisdom of the founding fathers and don't fix it if it isn't broke- but....

Many Americans have lost faith in the "non-partisianship" of the court. You are correct to say thay are the safest bet. All I am saying is that the safest bet could be safer. Let's limit them to 18 years. 18 years is plenty of time to express a non-partisian impact on the Constitution. wouldn't you agree?

 

[Closet Desire]

I tend...

...not to rate what I'm told the "American people" want too highly. I'm not referring to you, but to the tremendous power of a handful of people to influence and manipulate. Sometimes, I stop, look around, and ask myself if any of what I'm supposed to believe is really true. Is it a half-truth, a whole truth, or a bold-faced lie? Are we being told the whole truth? an opinion?

In the case of the Supreme Court I have to ask myself if they have actually erred in their judgement and, if they have, will this error have long term effects. I also have to ask myself if the source of my information has a vested interest in discrediting the Court.

Sitting over here with my finger in US News (so readily available...like corn flakes) and European news I've become painfully aware of how incomplete the story often is and I can't help but wonder if this is intended to maneuver the public into certain beliefs.

I think if we go back in the history of the court, say sixty years, we might very well find the same things being said about the Court.

The more things change...well...you know the rest.

 

[Guest]

Gore lost so rewrite the Constitution.

Why don't you throw out the electoral college while you are at it, or was that your next enlightened post?

 

[Closet Desire]

To whom...

...are you referring?

Personally, I don't care who won. They were elected as were the House and Senate. In the long run it never really seems to matter one way or the other.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Perhaps the presidency is too short a term. We spend all our time running for office.

Why 16 years?

What is a generation?

Maybe the confederacy was right,

7 years is about right?

These guys are not supposed to have democles sword above their head.

 

[RonG]

The reason for having lifetime appointments is so that the Judicial Branch still has some separation from the Executive Branch. Yes, the Prez nominates them and Congress confirms them but if you take the mystery out of when and how many are going at one time, you bind the Judicial Branch too closely to Executive elections.

I tend to believe that these folks get better with age. Clarence Thomas is a little smarter, David Souter and Stephen Breyer are definitely brighter, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg has improved a lot. Scalia was out of control from the moment he got there and hopefully he will become more moderate as he ages.

 

[Nogard]

It is not unreasonable. In my opinion it is a damn good idea. The problem will be getting the law changed. The justices themselves will be the most against it followed by the president. Presidents will not willing give up the means to keep their policies alive for years after they leave office. The present court is a good example of what the republications have done. A democratic president fighting a republican court. Democrats have had the licks too. Again, great idea, but it'll never fly

 

[Nogard]

Another thing to consider, when this country was founded a lifetime was considerably shorter. Doubt if many justices lived more than 20 years after being appointed. Be interesting to look into.

 

[Siren]

You are so right Nogard.....

 

[Grrrn38]

Since when does lifespan have anything to do with wisdom? That's not a logical reason to limit a term -- even if amending the law was a good idea.

 

[CelestialBody]