Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

[alp227]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.

The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Partly due to rising life expectancies, justices serve increasingly long tenures, on average now more than 25 years.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3

[Hoyt]

1. Don't really think that's a good idea. I bet it fails in House.

[reggaehead]

18. Great Idea

Long overdue. Excepting it should apply to all Federal Courts.

[Archae]

2. Dumb idea.

A Supreme Court justice CAN be thrown out, same way a President can.

I still say term limits are an arbitrary, fake method of finding the right people.

Yes, that includes Presidents.
FDR could have been voted out, but he wasn't. He was elected 4 times.

[msongs]

4. court justices are not elected. think of more as a retirement age except term not age nt

[LovingA2andMI]

3. Ten Years....

Would be better but this is solely needed. NO MORE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS for the U.S. Supreme Court!

[Lasher]

6. You would think Republicans would get behind this.

This is one of the favorite talking points among their constituents. OTOH, they would probably change that tune now that the SCOTUS is stacked in their favor.

[FreddyWhite]

16. I too am wondering if 18 years is still too long

[reggaehead]

19. I've been thinking about this for awhile

I've been thinking 20. But it should applly to all lifetime Judicial appointments

[karynnj]

50. 18 is associated with chai in Hebrew - and chai means life

People will often give Bnai Mitzvah gifts in multiples of chai (or 18)

Anyone more knowledgeable on this please correct.

[qazplm135]

5. Constitution says lifetime terms

Last time I checked, you can't overturn the Constitution with a law.

[PSPS]

9. From the article

Some legal observers, including those who favor term limits, say they must be accomplished through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted as requiring life tenure for federal judges and justices.

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

“That’s perfectly consistent with their judicial independence and having a lifetime salary and a lifetime appointment,” Khanna said.

[Polybius]

12. Guess who has the final say in challenging this?

Yup, zero chance they sign their own warrants.

[qazplm135]

29. That doesn't avoid the constitutional concerns

At all.

Giving them a soft removal is still a removal, and is still not a lifetime term.

[Salviati]

10. It looks like they're trying to get around that...

... by undoing a bit of the Judiciary act of 1801 and bringing back the idea of rotating justices out to the circuit courts. So after serving 18 years on the Supreme court, you become a "Senior Justice" and serve out the rest of your lifetime appointment in circuit courts.

If the idea of circuit court duties for supreme court justices can be eliminated via a law, it seems like they could be restored via a law. This is an angle I hadn't known about before, but I think I'd likely just prefer to expand the court, and then push for some amendments to fix this and other issues that are long overdue.

[qazplm135]

30. If you are rotated out permanently

Then it's not a lifetime appointment.

If you add additional duties, that's a different thing.

It's not constitutional.

Expanding the court is.

[Statistical]

45. It actually doesn't use the word lifetime and is like most things vague.

Article III Section 1

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, 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.

[qazplm135]

47. except that

lifetime tenure goes back to England, was well understood at the time, was discussed in the Federalist Papers, was in practice made clear when Jefferson tried to get rid of judges during his presidency, and has been the undisputed meaning of that section for the entire 200+ year history of the country.

But sure, it's "vague."

[roamer65]

51. Correct.

[marybourg]

7. I hope they are doing some useful things also.

[cstanleytech]

8. Make it a 12 year term with an option for a single 12 year extension if two thirds of the House

agrees to it.

[padah513]

23. I always thought every official in govt should be limited to 12 years.

One 12 year term for judges
Three 4 year terms for president - Yeah I know but I'm thinking four more years of Obama rather than four more years of trump
Two 6 year terms for senate
Six 2 year terms for reps

[cstanleytech]

24. Actually House members should be switched to 6 year terms and Senators to 8 year

terms however all of them can earn another term they have to gain 10% more of the vote and each time they run again they have to gain another 10%.
Once they leave office for whatever reason they should be forbidden to run for the same position in that or any other district though a Congressman can of course run for the Senate and a Senator can of course run for a House position.

[Polybius]

11. No way would I support this

That's just me though, you may disagree.

[Yavin4]

13. Wrong. Add more justices to the bench. Add DC and PR as states.

Expand democracy. Simple solution.

[oldsoftie]

25. Nope.

[Yavin4]

35. Why not?

What's your suggestion to bring democracy back to the courts? Right now, ANYTHING that a Democratic congress passes and Democratic president signs will be overturned by the SCOTUS. That's the ACA, climate change regulations, labor laws, etc.

We're in a new partisan age. We have to start acting like it.

[oldsoftie]

38. Because then its just a tit-for-tat after that. We'll end up with 75 judges.

The GOP will have power again at some point.

[Yavin4]

39. They have power now, and they're using it to their advantage.

What exactly would be different? So what if there's 150 justices? There are no more norms. That's what McConnell is telling you.

The if we do 'x', then they will do 'y' argument is fallacious because they're doing 'y' right now.

[oldsoftie]

42. But they're not doing "x". They had it all for 2 yrs & didnt add judges.

Trump would darn sure have gone along with it

I worry about the optics to the public more than anything else. If trump & the GOP get hammered inNov, a good part of it will be because of their hypocrisy. if the Dems just say "Well, we'll get the majority back. We'll just add more judges!" a lot of people will see sour grapes & '22 could very well go badly. I feel like once trump is GONE the "old" gop has to come back and take charge of the party.
But hey, who knows.

[Yavin4]

43. So, how do you rectify their hypocrisy?

The SCOTUS is an extension of the Republican senate. You have to be able to sell that to the American people. We're just restoring the justices stolen by the Republicans.

Also, the American people respect strength, not weakness. Part of the Republican appeal is that they exercise power when they have it and are willing to lose elections. This is why, as you say, they can make a come back in 2022 if they lose in 2020.

Doing the right thing may not have immediate political rewards, but it does down the line. Dems lost power in 2010 because of the ACA, but regained it in 2018 largely because of the ACA.

[DallasNE]

14. Great, One Each 2 Years n/t

[DallasNE]

15. Great, One Each 2 Years n/t

[FreddyWhite]

17. I say go for it!

It's a significant move that says "There will be consequences" even if it doesn't pass. It shows that dems are not doormats. this fires me up and makes me feel much better about this week.

[Escurumbele]

22. Isn't a better threat to let them know that once they take power they will increase the # of sits?

There are 9 judges right now, threaten to increase the number to 15, that would give Democrats a majority. There is a lot of damage that can be done in 18 years, I am not sure what a bill like that would accomplish.

We have the case of Judge Kennedy who stepped down to allow Kavanaugh to be appointed. He was supposed to be there for a life-time appointment but to benefit his party he decided to step down? Too much they can do to hurt the country in 18 years, and as we have already seen, it only takes less than four years to create havoc.

[LogicFirst]

20. Exercise in futility.

Wait until February.

[Escurumbele]

21. I would rather see a bill that assures there is a balance of power in the Supreme Court

I don't know how it would be done, but there should be a way to assure that neither party can pack the court with lackeys.

[Coleman]

28. The Constitution doesn't recognize parties

and what about 3rd parties? Limit to the 2 major parties and see how fast the law gets thrown out.

[oldsoftie]

26. The public would support this overwhelmingly. Just as they do term limits for politicians.

As a Constitutional Amendment i believe it would pass the required number of states as well

[onenote]

49. I doubt it could get the necessary support in the states

Red states would only support it if it applied prospectively so only will that the Republicans on the court wouldn’t have to step down after 18 years. Blue states only will support it if applies even to currently sitting Justices.

[bucolic_frolic]

27. Popular

but unConstitutional. Good election year politicking.

[Javaman]

31. funny that...

I wrote something on here years ago about limiting terms of justices. I took all the terms served and found the medium: 17 years.

do I still believe that today? I go back and forth on it. so basically no.

[RicROC]

32. yes, term limits for every politician

Supreme Court: increase SC to minimum 15, one for each judicial district and each assigned to a specific district.
12 year terms
President is able to appoint max 2 Justices per 4 year term- if multiple deaths during the term, the SC is not disrupted with a larger court.

House: 12 year terms, but each term 4 years, ½ House elected at each national election
remove cap of 435 members= # of Members of Congress based on population
campaigns are extremely expensive and time comsuming in finding campaign funds, so 4 year terms allows House members more time to do the peoples jobs

Senate: 12 years terms, but Senate is combined with House so one Congress
after # of seats determined for House, the 2 Senators are part of the states allotment.
it is important to have representation in the House elected by the entire state.
For specific Constitutional duties of Senators, they can still vote as Senators without the other House members for that specific duty.


and now for a radical idea. Redraw state lines based on USPS delivery zones.

[onenote]

33. It would further politicize the Court

Maybe the politicization of the court can't be reversed, but 18 year terms arguably would make it worse since everyone would know in advance whether a particular justice would be leaving the court.

Assume such a law had been enacted January 1, 1992.
Since that date, eight justices have been confirmed. If new vacancies occurred every 18 years after the dates on which those justices were confirmed, three of those justices would have (or had) to step down in an election year, and four would have had to step down in the year preceding an election year. Moreover, looking at the terms of the justices replacing the eight forced to step down after 18 years: one vacancy would occur in an election year and four would occur in the first year of a presidency.

[crickets]

40. I tend to agree.

Also, term limits are a double-edged sword that throw out the good with the bad.

[dajoki]

34. That's not good enough...

I read an article the other day where some federalist society nut job suggested the same thing, so if they want that it can't be good. I think term limits are good but they should be much less than 18 years and I do think the court needs to be expanded, all the courts.

[The Mouth]

36. Idiotic virtue signaling

As if there wasn't actual work to do.

[lastlib]

37. I still favor the National Court of Appeals proposal....

Create a National Court of Appeals beneath the Supreme Court, with 25 judges. (Pack it with good young progressives.) All appeals from district court and courts of appeal go here.

Strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, leaving it with its constitutional original jurisdiction. Long/short, we get the judges, Clarence PubicHair get his nap time, BeerBoy can stay hung over--problems solved.

No constitutional problems.

[FBaggins]

41. Not constitutional

And not just because they're the ones who get to decide whether it's constitutional.

You could create a "senior status" for those who retire and want to keep hearing cases at a lower level...

... except.. wait. That already exists without the name.

[Hortensis]

44. It would probably be good to read at least something about this

before imagining it's undoable or obviously the product of idiots.

Our house Democrats didn't really come up with this proposal as a toss-off at the end of a too-long and boozy lunch. It's been long thought out, has had the potential support of many constitutional experts if it ever became necessary, and has developed more support because it potentially solves many giant threats created by those who intend to weaponize a dangerously corruptible and unaccountable high court to replace our democracy with a far-right authoritarian government.

And strictly speaking, the way it would be applied is not unconstitutional. That argument against a new interpretation of the text would be made, of course, but Article III, Section 1 is not the rigid, closed circle some are imagining. It it were, our leadership would OF COURSE not decide to get behind this. But we've always believed in the need for a living constitution, one that can develop as needed and advance as desirable with society.

Anyone who reads the constitution (it's very short!) will not find any place where it says the federal government can forbid states from outlawing contraception and throwing citizens in prison for using it. Or where it says the federal government can't set up and administer national taxpayer-funded programs. Or where it says states and corporations can't decide what we can see on the internet. None is there anywhere. It was argued that they could and should be inferred, and courts with majorities of moderate conservatives and liberals in the 1960s and 1930s agreed. (The Republican leadership is now salivating over the prospect of reversing them and many others.)

“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…”

[Statistical]

46. So what will happen to Thomas and Breyer?

[onenote]

48. Nothing

It would not apply to any justice sitting at the time the law was enacted (or at least that’s what the article seems to say).