Proposals to change Supreme Court organization....what do you think?

[AnnInLa]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/22/AR2009022201863.html?hpid=topnews

SNIP

For starters, the group proposes a form of term limits, moving justices to senior status after 18 years on the court. The proposal says that justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions "will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern."

To get around the Constitution's prescription that justices serve for life, the group would let justices stay on the court in a senior role -- filling in on a case, perhaps, or dispatched to lower courts -- or lure them into retirement with promises of hefty bonuses.

SNIP

University of Chicago professor Eric Posner said the Constitution's call for lifetime appointments is one element of American democracy that is never copied by other countries, perhaps because "it is very undemocratic."

"People who wield an enormous amount of power should not have lifetime appointments," Posner said.

Relatedly, the group calls for the justice who serves as chief to be limited to seven years in the job, because it has "extended into numerous other political, administrative and non-judicial roles calling for a measure of special accountability."

The third proposal deals with the removal of justices in failing health "who are increasingly prone to remain in office and retain their political power even if no longer able to perform their office."

REAd the whole article at above link

[anonymous171]

1. The removal part sounds like it could be easily abused.

The rest of it sounds pretty good.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Age limit of 75. nt

[NeedleCast]

4. I think that would be the high end for me

For a position that is appointed instead of elected, there should be an age cap or term limit.

I always wonder what possesses someone to work that long anyway. I'm all for public servants who are passionate about their work, but I've never understood what motivates someone to work long past the age that most of their peers have retired.

When I was working for the federal immigration court system, we had some judges who were well into their 80s. One judge who passed away about 18 months ago worked into his early 90s and had a reputation for falling asleep on the bench and often "not being quite all there."

[Captain Hilts]

6. Age limit of 75 to serve, another one for age at time of appointment, perhaps. nt

[Still Sensible]

3. I disagree with this idea. In this scenario the Court could be

stacked each generation with the political whims of the moment. With the prevailing politics from about 1980 until about 2005, under this scenario there would have been a very good chance we would now have an even more right wing court than we see today.

The whole reason that SC judges are appointed for life is that, in theory, this allows them to be above politics. We all know that it hasn't quite worked out that way, but I fear it would be even worse if this idea was implemented.

[Captain Hilts]

7. I agree with you. nt

[Seeking Serenity]

8. I'm with you. I particularly was disturbed by this line, that the courts

"will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern."

That's not the courts' function, to be a sort-of political or cultural weather vane. The judiciary's job is to resolve disputes and to use, or review, the laws as given by the elected branches of government.

To go in Professor Posner's direction would do little more than give us yet another political branch of government. Great for us when our side is in power; not so great when the GOP is in the driver's seat.

(edited to correct spelling)

[TBF]

5. I like the age limit idea -

there is precedence for that. In the private sector most firms push their partners to senior status (retirement) at age 60. Another idea would be to add to the number of justices. Nine seems like a very small number given the population of this country.

[AnnInLa]

9. Wouldn't the idea that the "Constitution is a Living Document"

be better represented by a SC that could change with the times? Good or bad times? For example, I always thought the 2nd amendment was written in a time in history when everyday people (in addition to the militias) needed guns because people lived in a fairly hostile environment (Indians, wildlife) and far apart, once they moved away from population centers. But times are different now, and everyday people do not need an arsenal of guns, in fact it is dangerous when every rambo nutter walks around with guns...even bringing them to church now.

On the other hand, maybe changing how the Constitution is re-interpreted every few years would be too chaotic.