term limits for SCOTUS... this interesting proposition

[butters]

it would take a constitutional amendment but looks a healthy kind of move forward.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=aa323e5cd6364dc89512a049c784f6e6

There is one idea, though, that has longstanding bipartisan support, a proven record of success, and practical wisdom behind it: term limits. Imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices would be good for the country and the court. It would help ease the bitterness of the confirmation process and make the court more representative of the public’s views. And while conservatives might currently balk in light of their 6-3 majority, it’s a change that would not necessarily advantage either side over the long run.

The most common version of this reform contemplates justices serving nonrenewable 18-year terms, staggered so that one term ends every two years. This would mean that presidents would get to nominate new justices in the first and third years of their own administrations. Retirements and nominations would occur like clockwork. The result would be a court whose membership, at any given time, would reflect the selections of the past 4 1/2 presidential administrations.

 

[KeithD]

There are eleven court districts under the U.S. Supreme Court, each with a SC Justice over it. There's no reason not to expand the number of justices to the number of court districts that exist.

 

[phrodeau]

Senate Republicans will still find ways to cheat.

 

[Dribble]

Why do we need them? Not like they are making decisions based on law.

 

[KeithD]

Senate Republicans will still find ways to cheat.

The answer to that is the same as the answer to much else that needs to be done--reduce the number of Senate Republicans to under forty. Going to the polls no matter what the Republicans do to suppress the vote is the answer to so much now. It can start in November.

 

[Rightguide]

It will never happen.

 

[butters]

The answer to that is the same as the answer to much else that needs to be done--reduce the number of Senate Republicans to under forty. Going to the polls no matter what the Republicans do to suppress the vote is the answer to so much now. It can start in November.

it's the only solid way forward

 

[coffeelover5]

While we are at it, there shoud be term limits for all elected and appointed "pulic" servants. No more vareer politicians like the Kennedys or Mitch.

 

[Wrong Element]

There's even more support for term limits for Congress, which would also require a constitutional amendment, and this has gotten nowhere because it's really hard to get an amendment passed.

Expanding the size of the Court, which would also lessen the drama around confirmations by making individual justices less powerful, has been done before and would be much easier to pull off.

 

[Rightguide]

it's the only solid way forward

And you think you can accomplish this by bringing great economic and political pain to the American people. Think again.

 

[butters]

While we are at it, there shoud be term limits for all elected and appointed "pulic" servants. No more vareer politicians like the Kennedys or Mitch.

i'm in 2 minds over this.

i get that corruption, once installed, is hard to root out and the limited terms would help that no end. But what about the level-headed, decent, experienced, doing-what's-right-for-their state/country politicians? (how many of those exist is a debatable point) Is it better to toss out a good, responsible and effective 'career politician' after a set amount of time if the people looking to fill the role are anything but? Experience has to count, too, doesn't it??? I see it in terms of good or bad management: if you've a great manager, a company would be stupid to force them to retire at 60 if there's no-one coming up in the ranks to fill their shoes. Hmmn, i suppose a great manager would get someone trained up to do it, though, so.... you're probably right

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK, judges had to be no younger than 35 and no older than 70 but that is changing to 20s and maximum age 75.

 

[iso36]

SCOTUS is unelected with lifetime appointments to provide long term balance in the laws as a check against the more dynamic wishes of the people as expressed in the shorter elected terms of congress and president.

 

[butters]

There's even more support for term limits for Congress, which would also require a constitutional amendment, and this has gotten nowhere because it's really hard to get an amendment passed.

Expanding the size of the Court, which would also lessen the drama around confirmations by making individual justices less powerful, has been done before and would be much easier to pull off.

isn't that something the next president could just change again, by either adding more or reducing the numbers when justices naturally leave the position?

in American history, what number of justices for SCOTUS would you say has worked best?

from my limited knowledge, i like Keith's suggestion about the 11... one to each represent the court districts.

 

[butters]

bill introduced today, to “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=a2084edc14284116abaf53d6652309e6

The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.

it includes the 18-year term as mentioned previously, along with these proposals:

Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.

Under senior status, justices will still hold their office on the Supreme Court, which includes official duties and pay. If the number of justices dips below nine at some point — because of a vacancy, disability or disqualification — the justice who most recently attained senior status would serve as the ninth associate justice.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

It's time to admit that the supremes will always be political like the other 2 branches of US government

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Obviously the lifetime appointments of existing justices would be grandfathered in. This would apply to future appointees, right?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obviously the lifetime appointments of existing justices would be grandfathered in. This would apply to future appointees, right?

"Obviously"?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

"Obviously"?

Yes.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Funny... Court packing has always been done, or proposed to be done when one side doesn't get its way.

So the Dems in this case change it to 11. Then the Repubs get butt hurt and change it to 15. then how about 17?

Anything to gain a political advantage to keep the money flowing to your selected group.


There seem to be so many things about the Constitution and the United States that the OP doesn't like, that I'm surprised she can bear to live here.

 

[QueequegsHead]

Recent transplants should educate themselves on the history of our government before expressing their opinions.

 

[QueequegsHead]

SCOTUS is unelected with lifetime appointments to provide long term balance in the laws as a check against the more dynamic wishes of the people as expressed in the shorter elected terms of congress and president.

It's also why the Senate has a longer term of office.
As the late Senator Byrd (D) used to put it, we're the saucer that cools the coffee.

The SCOTUS lifetime appointment is to ensure judicial independence.

 

[butters]

Funny... Court packing has always been done, or proposed to be done when one side doesn't get its way.

So the Dems in this case change it to 11. Then the Repubs get butt hurt and change it to 15. then how about 17?

Anything to gain a political advantage to keep the money flowing to your selected group.


There seem to be so many things about the Constitution and the United States that the OP doesn't like, that I'm surprised she can bear to live here.

yes, to your first point

no to your second... the proposal is to keep a steady 9. maybe read the information provided before making silly comments.

the reason for the proposal is to keep it as balanced as possible

the last? there's a stupid.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK it is difficult to understand the bias of the US supreme court.

Very few UK people know or care about who are the members of the UK's supreme court. The are appointed for their expertise in law, not for their political opinions which they are not supposed to have. They are usually appointed with cross-party agreement for their expertise.

 

[iso36]

In the UK it is difficult to understand the bias of the US supreme court.

Very few UK people know or care about who are the members of the UK's supreme court. The are appointed for their expertise in law, not for their political opinions which they are not supposed to have. They are usually appointed with cross-party agreement for their expertise.

In Canada, we have set criteria, an application process vetted by an independent non-partisan advisory board, which submits a short list to the Prime Minister.