House Democrats Introduce Term Limits Bill For Supreme Court Justices

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A little over a week ago, House Democrats started a movement to change the makeup of the Supreme Court by introducing a bill to expand seats from nine to thirteen. They have now taken the next step with legislation imposing 18-year term limits regarding how long a justice could serve on the high court, The Hill reports.

The longest tenured Supreme Court Justice happens to be Clarence Thomas, currently on his 30th year on the bench. The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act would allow a president to nominate Supreme Court nominees every two years. This would occur during the first and third years of their terms. Thomas will immediately be moved to senior status if this bill is passed. Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito would follow once they hit the threshold in a couple of years.

After the new 18-year term limit is done, an active judge at the time would also receive the senior denomination. They will be moved over one-by-one in years one and three of a president’s term. Any “senior” judge would still hold an office and receive pay. If the Supreme Court falls below the nine-judge threshold, the most senior judge would be able to stand in and participate in cases.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced the bill along with Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) as they believe it will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also introduced the same measure in the Senate.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/house-democrats-introduce-term-limits-130909183.html

[Wounded Bear]

1. Sounds tricky. I'm not sure this gets around the Constitution adequately...

I'm sure it'll be challenged, and if when goes before the SC, would any of them let it stand? I doubt it.

I'm all for doing shit like this, I'm just not sure it'll pass Constitutional muster.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Same Here

Article III Judges
Article III states that these judges “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances. Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.

The part in quotes is actually in the constitution. It has been interpreted as meaning no other cause for removal exists, aside from impeachment.
Don't know how a congressional bill gets around that.

[Ms. Toad]

8. I think it might get around it.

They aren't removing them from office, they are changing their status from active to senior. Senior status in not new on the Federal Bench, although it is generally opted into - rather than imposed. The justices would still have a lifetime appointment. They still get paid. They still have the opportunity to participate in Supreme Court decisions in times of temporary vacancies on the bench. I think it might well pass constitutional muster.

I am generally opposed to term limits for Supreme Court justices - and have vigorously defended them here. But the dramatic depature of this court from anything close to normal jurisprudence needs a remedy. So term limits are now something I'm willing to consider for the Supreme Court.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. I Suppose

But, making them bench players could be interpreted as being removed, as their active involvement is not generally required. Just the simplest of semantics could create that interpretation.
Not sure, despite your expertise in law, that it's quite as bulletproof (bullet resistant?) as I infer from your post.
Then, on first challenge,, it's these very judges that get to decide constitutionality. That seems DOA.
We agree on the current court being radicalized & share the wish that something could be done

[Ms. Toad]

19. "might" is hardly an assertion that it is bullet-proof.

It's just the first thing I've seen that has a realistic chance of fitting within the language of the constitution. Certainly it has a better chance than the calls for impeachment for "lying under oath," when none of the current justices did so.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. On That Last Point, We Agree

Expecting impeachment over lies at the hearings is quixotic.

[FBaggins]

17. Pay has nothing to do with it

They get paid even if they retire already.

The clear purpose of the bill is to remove justices from have an influence on final appeal cases. The Constitution clearly accounts for that with impeachment.

although it is generally opted into

Not "generally" - always. There is no mandatory senior status age and it's almost certainly because Congress knew that such a requirement would be unconstitutional. (I'm pretty sure the option of senior status was added when mandatory retirement age was being added to other jobs so it was clearly contemplated)

While there is an argument to be made... it isn't a particularly strong one. The biggest argument against it (apart from it never passing in the current congress) is that the "argument to be made" would have to be made to the current court.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I don't see anything in the Constitution which requires them to remain in active status.

The language is:

shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

It doesn't say their role in that office shall remain identical during their time on the court - merely that they shall be paid, without diminismnent, during their continuance in office.

Adding senior status to the Supreme Court, a role which does not now exist at the Supreme Court level, with a trigger to move into senior status, leaves them in office (not removed) - still actively serving whenever there are vacancies on the court, at a pay which is undiminished during their continuance.

It is not the first time mandatory retirement has been suggested for Article III Judges, although because it never became law it has not been tested yet. This suggestion doesn't go that far - it only shifts justices, who will continue to serve, to senior status.

[Bayard]

2. Sounds like a bill wouldn't do it

It would have to be a Constitutional Amendment:

"The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."

[Jade Fox]

3. Yes, yes, yes! nt

[DakotaSnow]

4. In my perfect world

We would see this for the House and Senate as well. I know institutional knowledge from time and experience have value, but it seems really abused at times. Of course, the House and Senate will never pass anything restricting themselves.

[UTUSN]

5. K&R

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. Average term of a Justice is 16 years ...

I would rather see the court expanded to 15 Justices. Since FDR, who nominated 9, the most any president has nominated was 5 by Eisenhower. Even Dwight couldn't have radically altered the court if there were 15 on the bench.

https://vimbuzz.com/how-many-supreme-court-justices-appointed-by-each-president/

[LonePirate]

9. I prefer 15 because 13 would be 7-6 lib v. con and one lib departure could flip it with a Repub pres

[DakotaSnow]

11. I don't think

expansion is a solution. Any President who gets 2 terms and 8 years will likely have 1-2-3 retiring justices and it can still flip either side in those 8 years. I just don't see it as a solution to the end goal. Justices that are authentically non-partisan. (I know, fantasy-land)

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. A 'flip' is not the same as radicalization.

We have the Subversive 6, half of whom came from trumPutin and Moscow Mitch. Nixon and Reagan each nominated 4. That would be enough to install a majority in a 15-justice court, but to radicalize it would require control of the Senate during that time.

[Seeking Serenity]

23. I agree with increasing the number to 15

And mandate in the law that at least 9 justices have to be appointed by Democratic presidents or recommended by the Democratic leaders of Congress.

[Bettie]

15. I say 19

So that two nine judge panels run concurrently on cases, with one extra.

allows them to hear more cases, which, given the greater size of our population makes sense and it allows judges not to be placed on cases where the might even have the appearance of a conflict of interest.

A very few cases could then be appealed to the whole court.

[Hekate]

10. Sounds good to me.

[Novara]

12. Congress does have authority to regulate some things regarding the SCOTUS:

Congress can change the courts’ size, structure, and jurisdiction.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/congress-and-judicial-branch/congress-and-judicial-branch-negotiation

I'm not so sure the SCOTUS even CAN hear a case that involves regulating them. That would be a massive conflict of interest. It would appear that Congress can limit such jurisdiction.

[gratuitous]

16. Will this bill roll to immediate passage? No

But let's lift a page from our anti-woman friends who spent YEARS trying to subjugate women to second class status. They finally achieved their goal, however temporarily, with the Dobbs decision. Millions of women will have their lives jeopardized, and a whole bunch of women will die because of Dobbs. This was terrible policy instituted by the judicial fiat of an activist court over the objection of a majority of Americans.

It won't happen overnight, but we can get to a better policy favored by a majority of the people. And hopefully it won't take decades.

[moonshinegnomie]

18. congress could add a clause exempting it from supreme court review

[Takket]

22. looks nice on paper but won't last 3 seconds in front of SCOTUS

can't change the Constitution with a bill.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

24. love it

waste of time.

Originalist judges who drives their horse carriages to and from work I assume cause that is how the founders did it, will not let this happen it's not in the constitution.

[Cha]

25. A Freaking Men!

Focus!
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!