Drop the lifetime tenure for justices on high court

[Karmadillo]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6533415.html

Drop the lifetime tenure for justices on high court
By MARK TRACHTENBERG and KENT RUTTER
Copyright 2009 Houston Chonicle
July 16, 2009, 9:08PM

<edit>

There is a way to reduce the huge stakes and partisan bloodletting associated with modern-day confirmation hearings. Instead of lifetime tenure, each justice could be appointed to a finite term. If the justices served for 18 years, every president could appoint two justices during each four-year term.

Term limits would lessen the pressures that accompany lifetime appointments. Sotomayor is 55, while Justice John Paul Stevens remains vibrant as he approaches 90. If confirmed, Sotomayor could easily remain on the court until the 2040s, perhaps casting the deciding vote in hundreds of landmark cases. Yet even the most probing questions cannot accurately predict how Sotomayor would rule on the most important constitutional issues — whatever they may be — 35 years from now.

In addition to lowering the political temperature at confirmation hearings, term limits would offer several advantages over the current system.

First, by ensuring that each president has an equal opportunity to appoint justices, the proposal would reduce the arbitrariness of the current system and make the court more reflective of the changing political world. No longer would we have a system in which one president (Nixon) could appoint four justices in a single term, while another (Carter) does not appoint any. No longer could we go 11 years without a single appointment, as we did between 1994 and 2005. And no longer would we have a court in which four of the nine justices were appointed more than 18 years ago, as will be the case when the fall term begins.

Second, the current system effectively disqualifies the most experienced candidates — those in their 60s and 70s — because presidents understandably want their imprimatur on the Court to last as long as possible. With the lone exception of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was 60 when appointed, all of the current justices were in their mid-50s or younger when appointed, and Justice Clarence Thomas was only 43. Under a revised system, more experienced candidates held in high esteem, like Larry Tribe or David Tatel on the Democratic side, or J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the Republican side, could receive serious consideration.

Third, the proposal would reduce the risk of justices remaining on the court as their faculties diminish, either because they are unaware of their limitations or are holding out until a like-minded president is elected. This risk is not hypothetical. Justice William O. Douglas did not immediately resign even after suffering a serious stroke in 1974, and his colleagues refused to count his vote in any decision in which it would have affected the outcome of the case. A law professor recently documented several other instances of physical or mental decline among older justices.

more...

[yourout]

1. 10 years should be the limit.

[onenote]

11. what should be the limit for a Senator or member of the House?

If the executive and judicial branches would be subject to term limits, why not the legislature. And what limit would be appropriate?

[imdjh]

2. Don't we have enough Washingtonians on lifetime pensions for minimal service?

[yourout]

3. I would gladly pay his pension to get Scalia off the SCOTUS.

[SoCalDem]

4. I agree 150%.. (my plan)

Must be at least 55 years old
Maximum age 75

Maximum of two 10-yr terms (re-confirmation after 10 yrs)
No pension unless they serve the 2 terms

Usually by the time someone's 55, their child rearing years are behind them, they have had a career long enough to be vested in some form of pension, or have a paid off home. they would also have many years' worth of a paper-trail to follow.

[onenote]

9. re-confirmation would be a terrible idea

It would mean the justices would be even more likely, not less likely, to follow political trends.'

And a lot of notable justices were appointed before they were 55: William O Douglas was 40, Brennan was 50, to name two that come to mind.

[AngryAmish]

5. Agreed - 16 years

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Yes. Either a mandatory retirement age or term length.

[zipplewrath]

7. Not completely opposed, but...

I have some desire to include some sort of "term limit" on justices. To some extent I'm a bit interested more in "maximum age" although one can argue for some time exactly what that should be. The only thing I really worry about is the effect of knowing, years in advance, when a justice will be leaving. It could create a certain "lame duckness" to a justice. Even a certain amount of monkey business within the court itself about what cases to take, when, based upon a perception about the future makeup of the court. In addition, it could further INCREASE the politicization of the court by making up coming appointments major campaign issues up to including practically creating "judicial running mates".

I just finished reading a book about the Jefferson - Marshall battles of the early years and Marshall's affect on the court and the relationship with the government. It's hard to come away not thinking that Marshall was a major "cause" or preamble to the conflicts which lead to the civil war. And Jefferson's call for a greater roll for the states in asserting constitutional transgressions on the part of the federal government makes alot more sense after 8 years of Bush. His concern about the "disconnect" of the justices from the people was also prescient in some ways. The court makes its decisions in a process that makes the population feel completely disconnected from their constitution. One wonders if there should be some "veto" power of the states over SC decisions other than a constitutional convention.

[anonymous171]

8. It should be 20 years. nt

[onenote]

10. the authors say some scholars think a term limit could be imposed by statute

That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Anyone have a link to that argument.

[shraby]

12. When the constitution was written life expectancies

were much shorter than they are now. Maybe the states and the federal government should take a long hard look at the problems presented with a lifetime appointment. It takes the states and the feds to make any changes to the constitution, and a certain percentage of each has to be in agreement.