Supreme Court term limits

[LPTiger 5,173]

I just read that Ro Khana has sponsored a bill to set term limits for US Supreme Court Justices.   I never practiced con law, but I sure studied it in law school 34 years ago....   Art. III says justices shall serve during good behavior which was a term taken from England that meant for life.    Wouldn't term limits for any Article III judge/justice violate Article III and thus only be viable via a constitutional amendment?

[TexasTiger 13,005]

1 hour ago, LPTiger said:

I just read that Ro Khana has sponsored a bill to set term limits for US Supreme Court Justices.   I never practiced con law, but I sure studied it in law school 34 years ago....   Art. III says justices shall serve during good behavior which was a term taken from England that meant for life.    Wouldn't term limits for any Article III judge/justice violate Article III and thus only be viable via a constitutional amendment?

Maybe not:

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-8

[LPTiger 5,173]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Maybe not:

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-8

Texas the first sentence says the framers intended justices to serve life terms....  The words "Reinvent American democracy" should scare everyone... 

[TexasTiger 13,005]

4 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Texas the first sentence says the framers intended justices to serve life terms....  The words "Reinvent American democracy" should scare everyone... 

Everyone should be frightened already.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I would like to see the court elected, have ethical oversight and, have term limits.

They have proven to be no more above promoting their own bias, promoting their own self interests than, the rest of us.

[Mikey 16,716]

The purpose of permanent appointment was to, as much as possible, stop the Court from wavering willy-nilly with the political winds. I want it left alone, and as soon as the libbies get a majority on the court they will then want it left alone too.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

14 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I would like to see the court elected, have ethical oversight and, have term limits.

They have proven to be no more above promoting their own bias, promoting their own self interests than, the rest of us.

Elected? You really want potential SC justices campaigning nationwide?  Our electorate is already teeming with low-information voters who can't see past "gimme, gimme, gimme", and you want to leave the selection of nine justices to a popular vote?  Yikes.

Ethical oversight provided by...whom/what agency, pray tell?  You'd have the justices popularly elected, which would cost money, money for which they would become no better than what you currently claim to abhor (prostitutes, essentially), and THEN expect some idealistic oversight entity to magically keep them reined in (and who is defining ethical here, btw)?  

Term limits...not opposed in theory, but do it the right way via Constitutional amendment (which goes for many other things that have been thrust onto the Supreme Court because Congress won't do their jobs, but I digress).  Changing this via judicial fiat would be the height of irony.  Congress critters first, though.

[AU9377 5,027]

20 hours ago, LPTiger said:

I just read that Ro Khana has sponsored a bill to set term limits for US Supreme Court Justices.   I never practiced con law, but I sure studied it in law school 34 years ago....   Art. III says justices shall serve during good behavior which was a term taken from England that meant for life.    Wouldn't term limits for any Article III judge/justice violate Article III and thus only be viable via a constitutional amendment?

Absolutely, which is why all the talk about it in the world is just talk. There would need to be a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate.  Thereafter, 38 of the 50 states would need to ratify the amendment (3/4ths).  The sitting President plays no official role in the amendment process and has no power of veto.

There is also the Constitutional Convention method, but it has never been used before, so I doubt there is a chance in hell of that being the route.

Edited July 4, 2023 by AU9377

[AU9377 5,027]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

The purpose of permanent appointment was to, as much as possible, stop the Court from wavering willy-nilly with the political winds. I want it left alone, and as soon as the libbies get a majority on the court they will then want it left alone too.

I agree.  Unfortunately, both sides have been guilty of polarizing the court as much as they have polarized the electorate. 

I do wish that the Republicans had done the right thing and allowed Obama's nomination of Garland to come to a vote.  They had every right to not confirm him as justice if they had concerns about his qualifications or could have simply not confirmed due to him being nominated by a President of the opposing party.  However, McConnell wasn't certain that he could get enough nay votes if the nomination reached a floor vote because there wasn't anything other than politics that disqualified him from confirmation.  Not allowing his confirmation to reach the floor was seen by many as being underhanded and an administrative way of depriving the President of this choice. That will now be used for decades to excuse any similar action by the Democrats.

[GoAU 1,600]

The re-writing of the rules for what one party wants is another step toward the end of our nation.  Things like implementing term limits, the talk of packing the courts, trying to give DC statehood, etc are all blatantly against the fabric that the nation was founded under.  The ends justifying the means cannot be accepted when it comes to disregarding the Constitution.  

[AU9377 5,027]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

The re-writing of the rules for what one party wants is another step toward the end of our nation.  Things like implementing term limits, the talk of packing the courts, trying to give DC statehood, etc are all blatantly against the fabric that the nation was founded under.  The ends justifying the means cannot be accepted when it comes to disregarding the Constitution.  

I find it interesting that you mention term limits.  Term limits are a great example of something that, as applied to Presidents, were not mentioned in the Constitution, but were instead a tradition that Presidents followed after Washington.  After FDR was elected to a 4th term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was proposed and eventually ratified in  1951, therein limiting anyone to two terms or twice being elected President.  How was that act of amending the constitution not an act of disregarding the constitution?  Why would a document, which contains a clear pathway for its amendment, be so sacred as to make the discussion of amending it somehow anti American?

I am not certain how I feel about term limits for justices, but we would certainly benefit from term limits for some other elected officials. 

If we would all just be honest in discussing the situation, we could agree that some of the issues today were impossible for men that lived over 2 centuries ago to have contemplated.

Edited July 5, 2023 by AU9377

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I find it interesting that you mention term limits.  Term limits are a great example of something that, as applied to Presidents, were not mentioned in the Constitution, but were instead a tradition that Presidents followed after Washington.  After FDR was elected to a 4th term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was proposed and eventually ratified in  1951, therein limiting anyone to two terms or twice being elected President.  How was that act of amending the constitution not an act of disregarding the constitution?  Why would a document, which contains a clear pathway for its amendment, be so sacred as to make the discussion of amending it somehow anti American?

I am not certain how I feel about term limits for justices, but we would certainly benefit from term limits for some other elected officials. 

If we would all just be honest in discussing the situation, we could agree that some of the issues today were impossible for men that lived over 2 centuries ago to have contemplated.

I mentioned term limits as it was the main topic of the thread.  But, I do agree with you that the only legal way to implement terms for Justices would be a Constitutional Amendment, which in the current state would never happen.  
 

By saying “if we would all be honest”, are you really implying “if we could all just agree with you”?  

[AU9377 5,027]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I mentioned term limits as it was the main topic of the thread.  But, I do agree with you that the only legal way to implement terms for Justices would be a Constitutional Amendment, which in the current state would never happen.  
 

By saying “if we would all be honest”, are you really implying “if we could all just agree with you”?  

My thinking was in response to your remarks about people re-writing the rules and their actions being "blatantly against the fabric that the nation was founded under." The men who wrote the Constitution were brilliant in some ways, but they were men with priorities and blind spots like all other men.  Importantly, they provided a method by which a government by the people could change the governing document without the need for revolution.  Proposing changes to the constitution isn't some sort of assault against it, but rather it is proof of its resilience and ability to evolve with an ever changing electorate and country.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Elections for SCOTUS are a terrible idea.  All the downsides of our current elected officials with few benefits.

I think someone a few years back proposed 18-year term limits, with further limits placed on how many justices a president could appoint in a given term in office (two).  The 18 year idea also made it so that few of them would occur during election years (not a multiple of 4).  It would lessen the tendency for both parties to go scorched earth over SCOTUS nominees since they'll eventually cycle off instead of being in place for 30-40 years or more.  If it were going to be done, I think this is the way to do it.

That said, I believe it would take a constitutional amendment, not just a congressional bill.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Elections for SCOTUS are a terrible idea.  All the downsides of our current elected officials with few benefits.

So, democracy is a failure?  Or, is lack of real democracy the failure?

Was it democracy that politicized the court?  Is it a lack of democracy that has produced our current political dynamic?

If no one is disenfranchised, marginalized, should the minority ever dictate to the majority?

 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

I would support it if done by a Constitutional Amendment. For good measure I would also support term limits for Congress and age limits for the Presidency via Constitutional Amendment as well. 

[AUApostle 7,654]

I’d much rather see term limits in congress…get these folks like McConnell and Pelosi out of there…they come in and trade wins and losses while their stock portfolios balloon over their careers.

[arein0 977]

1 minute ago, AUDevil said:

I’d much rather see term limits in congress…get these folks like McConnell and Pelosi out of there…they come in and trade wins and losses while their stock portfolios balloon over their careers.

If that is your reasoning for wanting term limits, wouldn't it just make more sense to remove conflicts of interest?

[autigeremt 6,667]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:03 PM, icanthearyou said:

I would like to see the court elected, have ethical oversight and, have term limits.

They have proven to be no more above promoting their own bias, promoting their own self interests than, the rest of us.

Of course you would. 🙄

[autigeremt 6,667]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

So, democracy is a failure?  Or, is lack of real democracy the failure?

Was it democracy that politicized the court?  Is it a lack of democracy that has produced our current political dynamic?

If no one is disenfranchised, marginalized, should the minority ever dictate to the majority?

 

The Republic has been destroyed by “Democracy” 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

17 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The Republic has been destroyed by “Democracy” 

Quite possibly the worst post you have ever contributed.

[autigeremt 6,667]

11 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Quite possibly the worst post you have ever contributed.

🤦🏼‍♂️

[homersapien 11,431]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:47 PM, LPTiger said:

Texas the first sentence says the framers intended justices to serve life terms....  The words "Reinvent American democracy" should scare everyone... 

No me.  Our constitution has some serious flaws that are outdated.  We could use an update. (Such as term limits for SCOTUS judges.)