Term limits for the Judical Branch

[Knowledgeispower]

So what so you think of the idea of term limits for the courts in the United States. Personally I think that no postion with as much power as a senate approved federal judge should be allowed to stay in their position for more than the equivalent of two Senate terms ie 12 years and no more than 24 years as a federal judge all told.

 

[LordsFire]

The idea behind lifetime judicial appointments, was to try to make it so judges would not be influenced by the politics of getting re-elected.

The fact that the judiciary has become incredibly political over the last century, even if it's not 'election politics,' is a pretty serious problem.

I don't know if judicial term limits is a good solution for this, but I think it could at least be tried on a limited scale to see how it ended up playing out.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

The idea behind lifetime judicial appointments, was to try to make it so judges would not be influenced by the politics of getting re-elected.

The fact that the judiciary has become incredibly political over the last century, even if it's not 'election politics,' is a pretty serious problem.

I don't know if judicial term limits is a good solution for this, but I think it could at least be tried on a limited scale to see how it ended up playing out.

Personally my main problem with lifetime Judicial appointments is personified by Justice Ginsburg who instead of retiring like a regular person at her age and list of medical issues is instead not doing so. Even disregarding the blatant political part of this decision I don't think it's a good idea for someone with all those issues to be on the most powerful court of the land since they could very easily affect their judgment. If nothing else the Courts need something along the lines of the 25th amendment applied to them and for that matter so does Congress.

 

[Cherico]

Personally my main problem with lifetime Judicial appointments is personified by Justice Ginsburg who instead of retiring like a regular person at her age and list of medical issues is instead not doing so. Even disregarding the blatant political part of this decision I don't think it's a good idea for someone with all those issues to be on the most powerful court of the land since they could very easily affect their judgment. If nothing else the Courts need something along the lines of the 25th amendment applied to them and for that matter so does Congress.

In Ginsburgs defense she does the best week end at bernies impression I've ever seen.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I support age limits for Justices; turn eighty and you get to finish out the current term, then you are out.

Term limits for judges just cause more problems than they solve though. Not to mention that they would require an amendment to the Constitution and thus aren't ever going to happen.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

I support age limits for Justices; turn eighty and you get to finish out the current term, then you are out.

Term limits for judges just cause more problems than they solve though. Not to mention that they would require an amendment to the Constitution and thus aren't ever going to happen.

Hmm 80 is a little high maybe 75 would work instead?

 

[Aaron Fox]

I support age limits for Justices; turn eighty and you get to finish out the current term, then you are out.

Term limits for judges just cause more problems than they solve though. Not to mention that they would require an amendment to the Constitution and thus aren't ever going to happen.

That would cause problems due to advancing medical care. I wouldn't be surprised that in the coming decades (baring some apocalyptic war), the average US life expectancy would climb to a hundred with the absolute ceiling of an unaugmented human lifespan topping off at 120 years old (augmented, on the other hand, is a whole different kettle of fish that I won't discuss here).

 

[Emperor Tippy]

That would cause problems due to advancing medical care. I wouldn't be surprised that in the coming decades (baring some apocalyptic war), the average US life expectancy would climb to a hundred with the absolute ceiling of an unaugmented human lifespan topping off at 120 years old (augmented, on the other hand, is a whole different kettle of fish that I won't discuss here).

You still need some turnover, effectively it ends up with 20 to 30 year "terms" and keeps the court a full generation behind current social trends.

Besides, while extending physical survival almost indefinitely is likely to occur within the next few decades (at least for those with the resources to afford it); doing the same thing for the mind is a lot less likely (in the same time frame at least).

 

[What's the sitch?]

I get that it was originally designed so that judges could freely work without worrying about having to appease people to maintain their position, but judges have gotten too political as of late, they themselves are changing and "re interpreting" the constitution, so in that case why not change it to set some kind of term. Also I don't know if the founding fathers envisioned people living 90+ years hanging on to power in order to further their political agenda in a place where they are untouchable.

Perhaps as mentioned.... don't make it so they can be removed... but some sort "term" limit of 20-25 years and if you start having to take excessive time off to medical issues(that arise with age) you have to resign.

That way they really can do whatever they want, but eventually their reign does come to an end. And their is some small worry in the back of their head that they can't just hide their for life so they can't get too crazy.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I get that it was originally designed so that judges could freely work without worrying about having to appease people to maintain their position, but judges have gotten too political as of late, they themselves are changing and "re interpreting" the constitution, so in that case why not change it to set some kind of term. Also I don't know if the founding fathers envisioned people living 90+ years hanging on to power in order to further their political agenda in a place where they are untouchable.

They also didn't envision that the US would be across the continent, the Cotton Gin would be invented (remember that slavery was literally on the way out economically back when the Constitution was created), or Hamilton and Jefferson would have a grudge match that would spawn the first two parties... among other things.

Hell, even the Founders would be singing a different tune about security and freedom if they knew about the tech we've got.

Perhaps as mentioned.... don't make it so they can be removed... but some sort "term" limit of 20-25 years and if you start having to take excessive time off to medical issues(that arise with age) you have to resign.

That way they really can do whatever they want, but eventually their reign does come to an end. And their is some small worry in the back of their head that they can't just hide their for life so they can't get too crazy.

That is... problematic, as we've seen overall. Term limits are the worst idea possible for the most part, for they encourage problems in other ways.

 

[S'task]

I get that it was originally designed so that judges could freely work without worrying about having to appease people to maintain their position, but judges have gotten too political as of late,

I actually have to disagree with this assessment. What we've been seeing is actually a systemic de-politicization of the court from when it became overly political starting in the 1930s under FDR and climaxing with the Warren Court of the 60s and 70s. While many people call Republican appointees "activist judges" and "political", when you compare how they rule to what the Constitution says and what the original intent of Judicial Power was, you'll find them very in line with what the Founders of the country wanted. It is, however, SEEN as being "political" because of how frequently Left wing political positions ARE to the actual separation of powers and Constitutional limits of governments in the US.

The courts should never be seen as the primary way in which social change is accomplished in the US. In fact, they should ALWAYS been seen as an obstacle requiring major effort to overcome if you want radical structural and social change in the US. It is a, frankly, terrible thing that rather than pursue their desired social and political changes through the democratic process and allowing the various States to make their own determinations on things, that the American Progressive movement since FDR has instead sought to enforce their ideology via the court system without regard to the democratic process. In fact, one can make a very strong case that the modern polarization of American culture directly comes from that effort.

 

[Aaron Fox]

You still need some turnover, effectively it ends up with 20 to 30 year "terms" and keeps the court a full generation behind current social trends.

The thing is we need a larger Supreme Court, mostly to ensure more throughput. Have, say, 21 justices with most cases having 7 justices presiding would do wonders for Supreme Court backlog. If it is something major, then call in the entire 21 Justices.

Also, have some sort of provision to ensure that the seats are filled within a year of a retirement/death/removal of supreme justice(s), just to prevent what McConnell did and anyone else trying that sort of shit again.

Besides, while extending physical survival almost indefinitely is likely to occur within the next few decades (at least for those with the resources to afford it); doing the same thing for the mind is a lot less likely (in the same time frame at least).

Hence why I stated 'I won't discuss here'.

I actually have to disagree with this assessment. What we've been seeing is actually a systemic de-politicization of the court from when it became overly political starting in the 1930s under FDR and climaxing with the Warren Court of the 60s and 70s. While many people call Republican appointees "activist judges" and "political", when you compare how they rule to what the Constitution says and what the original intent of Judicial Power was, you'll find them very in line with what the Founders of the country wanted. It is, however, SEEN as being "political" because of how frequently Left wing political positions ARE to the actual separation of powers and Constitutional limits of governments in the US.

The courts should never be seen as the primary way in which social change is accomplished in the US. In fact, they should ALWAYS been seen as an obstacle requiring major effort to overcome if you want radical structural and social change in the US. It is a, frankly, terrible thing that rather than pursue their desired social and political changes through the democratic process and allowing the various States to make their own determinations on things, that the American Progressive movement since FDR has instead sought to enforce their ideology via the court system without regard to the democratic process. In fact, one can make a very strong case that the modern polarization of American culture directly comes from that effort.

Wow, someone has vastly misread how the Justice worked or how it went with its business or reacted to the situation it found itself in.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

The thing is we need a larger Supreme Court, mostly to ensure more throughput. Have, say, 21 justices with most cases having 7 justices presiding would do wonders for Supreme Court backlog. If it is something major, then call in the entire 21 Justices.

This is actually easily doable compared to passing a Constitutional amendment since Congress sets the size of SOCTUS as per the constitution. Of course they haven't change the size since 1869 but they do have the power.

 

[Aaron Fox]

This is actually easily doable compared to passing a Constitutional amendment since Congress sets the size of SOCTUS as per the constitution. Of course they haven't change the size since 1869 but they do have the power.

Partially because the Supreme Court's power is actually precarious at the end of the day. It only has power by either having Congress or POTUS at their back. If neither supports it then the power it has is gone.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

The thing is we need a larger Supreme Court, mostly to ensure more throughput. Have, say, 21 justices with most cases having 7 justices presiding would do wonders for Supreme Court backlog. If it is something major, then call in the entire 21 Justices.

That defeats half the purpose of having a Supreme Court. Anything that is important enough to reach SCOTUS is important enough that it should already be heard by the whole of the Court, not by a panel of justices. That also makes the law subject to luck of the draw and causes issues with precedent.

As for SCOTUS being enlarged, while I probably would have gone with 13 Justices as opposed to 9 if startings from scratch, it is politically impossible. At a minimum you would need majorities in both the House and Senate while also holding the White House, and realistically you would need commanding majorities along with broad popular support or the backlash come the next election would be epic. If the Democrats tried it, you would immediately see massive campaigns to fill the state legislatures for the purpose of ramming through a Constitutional Amendment that strips the additional appointees of their positions (and maybe voids all decisions that they were a party too) and fixes the size of the court at 9. If the Republicans tried it the Democrats would run on impeaching the extra justices and replacing them; and are liable to win.

Also, have some sort of provision to ensure that the seats are filled within a year of a retirement/death/removal of supreme justice(s), just to prevent what McConnell did and anyone else trying that sort of shit again.

Nah, SCOTUS is already the least timely branch of government. Keeping the odd seat empty when the stars align really isn't that big a deal. And the Justices are powerful enough (and serve for life) that no one should get to default into the role.

Garland couldn't get a majority of Senators to support him. If he could have, McConnell never could have refused to hold hearings or do anything about it. All McConnell did was provide political cover to the Republican Senators and shift the conversation happening nationally to one that was more in favor of the GOP.

Voting against Garland would be hard on the merits for a great many vulnerable Republicans and holding hearings, and then having a vote, is going to make the Republicans look bad when they vote against him. It also makes the attack ads easier. On the other hand, by not holding a vote McConnell enrages the Democrats and essentially forces them into broad attacks on the GOP as opposed to specific attacks on specific individuals and focuses a lot of the anger on him as an individual.

There was also the secondary advantage of doing nothing with Garland as opposed to rejecting him. If Clinton won in 2016 (or Republicans lost the Senate) then the day after election day, Garland would have suddenly had a hearing and been approved in record time. Garland was the best the Republicans could hope for from a Democrat President, and both Obama & Hillary (and the Democrats in general) spent far too long touting Garland as supremely qualified and a great choice; pulling him simply because Hillary won wouldn't have been politically viable.

This is actually easily doable compared to passing a Constitutional amendment since Congress sets the size of SOCTUS as per the constitution. Of course they haven't change the size since 1869 but they do have the power.

And if it was even seriously suggested, the Republicans would run on passing a Constitutional Amendment to fix the size of SCOTUS at 9.

As a practical matter, court packing is politically suicidal for both sides. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to see such an Amendment floated in the next few terms anyways; simply because packing the courts has been again suggested by the Democrats when they don't like how it is ruling.

Partially because the Supreme Court's power is actually precarious at the end of the day. It only has power by either having Congress or POTUS at their back. If neither supports it then the power it has is gone.

No, their power rests on popular support and legitimacy.

 

[S'task]

Wow, someone has vastly misread how the Justice worked or how it went with its business or reacted to the situation it found itself in.

I have no idea what you're talking about? I've extensively studied the history of the Supreme Court and it's cases. One cannot in good faith argue the sheer expansion of the power of the Federal Government that the courts began allowing under FDR and continuing into the 70s was in line with what was intended for the Federal government. After all in this period the court allowed the Federal government to regulate (prohibit) the growing of grain for farmer's on farm consumption under the Commerce Clause.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I have no idea what you're talking about? I've extensively studied the history of the Supreme Court and it's cases. One cannot in good faith argue the sheer expansion of the power of the Federal Government that the courts began allowing under FDR and continuing into the 70s was in line with what was intended for the Federal government. After all in this period the court allowed the Federal government to regulate (prohibit) the growing of grain for farmer's on farm consumption under the Commerce Clause.

Wow, just ignoring the greater context there mate.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Rather than a term limit, politically extremely unlikely given it would require a constitutional amendment, I could see a bill with something along the lines of:

"All SCOTUS judges must have a mental health evaluation by three different professionals every six months. Detection of the following [Long list starting with Alzheimer's assembled by medical professions who know more than me] results in automatic removal from the court. Detection of the following [list of treatable mental conditions] results in temporary removal until treatment is considered completed and the judge is cleared of issues."

 

[Aaron Fox]

Rather than a term limit, politically extremely unlikely given it would require a constitutional amendment, I could see a bill with something along the lines of:

"All SCOTUS judges must have a mental health evaluation by three different professionals every six months. Detection of the following [Long list starting with Alzheimer's assembled by medical professions who know more than me] results in automatic removal from the court. Detection of the following [list of treatable mental conditions] results in temporary removal until treatment is considered completed and the judge is cleared of issues."

Add an 'all supreme justice confirmations must be confirmed within 1 (one) year of any removal/retirement/death' to prevent the BS McConnell played from repeating again and you'll be golden with the Dems.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Add an 'all supreme justice confirmations must be confirmed within 1 (one) year of any removal/retirement/death' to prevent the BS McConnell played from repeating again and you'll be golden with the Dems.

Doubtful. The Democrats like to play that game too, under Bush the Democrats refused to hold any votes for confirmations of his candidates from June 2001 to January 2003. Then, when the Republicans got a majority and began to actually hold confirmations, the remaining Democrats filibustered all confirmations until 2005 when the makeup of the house changed enough to make that too risky and they were threatened with a nuclear option.

The Republicans did not, as is sometimes said, break all norms with Garland. The played the same game that had been going on for a very long time and happened to win for once.