Should there be term limits on Supreme Court justices?

[undeterred]

The REAL SUPREMES

[Poll_Blind]

1. I like the idea of a term limit. 10 still seems too much, so I went with 6. n/t

PB

[skepticscott]

14. The potential problem with that is

that if you have a long stretch of conservative presidents (e.g. Reagan and Bush I, or Bush II and McCain, if he had been elected), you can have the whole court be highly conservative for long enough to do a lot of damage. Granted, it works both ways, and not every justice appointed by a conservative president has turned out to be as conservative on the bench as expected, but the appointments by a liberal president might not be able to undo all the damage.

[Poll_Blind]

18. I agree. Outside of the casual nature of this particular poll, it is a very STICKY question...

...in my opinion. The whole concept of a Supreme Court and stare decisis in general is both good and bad: It (as I think you mentioned) cuts both ways.

Do we need a super-Supreme Court? Something like the ancient sanhedrin composed of 70+ "judges" on a topic? Would that ultimately help? Would just a few more members do the trick?

This is maybe related or maybe an unintentional canard but, for instance, look at the House of Representatives. 435 members, IIRC. But according to The Constitution, that number should be something like 5,000 members. This is off the top of my head, please excuse any factual errors but my point hopefully transcends that. Anyway, the point is that we've got a huge 300m+ population who is subject to aspects of the government which are...arguably archaic.

9 judges intrerpreting the law for 300+ million Americans? Regardless of the skill or political outlook of those individuals, it is (IMO) too much power in the hands of too few.

I doubt that changes of any sort in relation to both the House of Representatives or Supreme Court in hopes of updating them to better-reflect our nation, today, are not going to happen anytime soon.

Maybe I muddled my point with the comment about the House but, IMO, we've outgrown aspects of our own government and, although the Founding Fathers were fore-thinking enough to give us the tools to update that government, we have wrapped our now-dysfunctional governing system in a sort of reverence which does us functional disservice and which was never intended by our Founding Fathers, the creators of it.

So it leads to all sorts of problems and this bit with the Supreme Court is just the tip of the iceberg in a lot of ways.

PB

[skepticscott]

23. Well, the law places

no particular limit on the number of Supreme Court justices. There have been more at times, but nine seem to be where things have settled.

And of course, the whole discussion merely emphasizes the point that both liberals and conservatives have pretty much come to expect that Supreme Court decisions will be politically and ideologically motivated, which is sad, but probably ain't gonna change. Given that, some degree of balance between Democratic and Republican nominees is not entirely a bad thing.

[Beacho]

2. I voted 'no'

Not that there isn't politics on the USC, but such a change would politicize the judicial branch to the point of uselessness. I almost went for 'using impeachment' more, but the fall out would be devastating for those calling for impeachment. I think the closest was Jefferson going after Jay and he had to back down.

[undeterred]

3. It seems like their judgments have become politicized

since Bush v Gore in 2000. When the justices stop taking this incredibly important job seriously, something needs to change. And I don't want it to be the Constitution.

[provis99]

4. Your worried now that the Supreme Court "might" become too politicized?

In what way could it be more politicized than it already is? They routinely vote 5-4 along strict conservative/liberal lines. The idea that the Supreme Court is somehow "above politics" is utter nonsense.

[Beacho]

11. I never said they were above politics

They're still human beings with human failings, not androids. I recognize that. *But* applying any kind of time limit would politicize it even more. Specifically it would bring outside political pressure to bear that would take away their ability to stay out of the political fray. This is about the separation of powers, not who happens to be sitting on the bench at the moment.

[Fresh_Start]

5. lack of common sense should be adequate for impeachment nt

nt

[Posteritatis]

6. Voted no; term limits aren't going to depoliticize it at all. (nt)

[blondeatlast]

7. +1. nt

[concerned1]

8. Maybe they need periodic checks by neurologists - the way Las Vegas hookers get checked for STDs

[MineralMan]

9. Another silly suggestion, since it would require a constitutional

amendment to do that. Doesn't anyone think before posting? Please...

[undeterred]

13. Yeah, sometimes constitutional amendments are a good idea.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, sometimes they are. However, they are, and should be,

very difficult to achieve. Just now, such an amendment would be impossible to get through Congress. In fact, many Democrats would oppose such an amendment.

Hell, we couldn't even get the ERA enacted.

[LiberalFighter]

10. If their combined age and federal judicial service is 100 yrs or more they should retire.

Ford
04/20/1920 <89 yrs> John Paul Stevens (Federal Judge for 5 yrs) (Justice for 35 yrs)

Reagan
03/11/1936 <74 yrs> Antonin Scalia (Federal Judge for 4 yrs) (Justice for 24 yrs)
07/23/1936 <73 yrs> Anthony Kennedy (Federal Judge for 13 yrs) (Justice for 22 yrs)

Bush Spy
06/23/1948 <61 yrs> Clarence pubic hair Thomas (Federal Judge for 1 yr) (Justice for 19 yrs)

Clinton
03/15/1933 <76 yrs> Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Federal Judge for 13 yrs) (Justice for 17 yrs)
08/15/1938 <71 yrs> Stephen Breyer (Federal Judge for 4 yrs) (Justice for 16 yrs)

Bush Idiot
01/27/1955 <55 yrs> John dickhead Roberts (Federal Judge for 2 yrs) (Justice for 5 yrs)
04/01/1950 <59 yrs> Samuel crybaby Alito (Federal Judge for 16 yrs) (Justice for 4 yrs)

Obama
06/25/1954 <55 yrs> Sonia Sotomayor (Federal Judge for 6 yrs) (Justice for 1 yr)

[onenote]

20. under this approach, William O Douglas would've been forced to retire

in around 1968 or 1969 -- before he would've had a chance to rule on many important cases.

William Brennan would've been out in 1981.

Ginsburg would've been gone in 2006 (with chimpy naming her replacement).

[fishwax]

12. A SCOTUS nomination and confirmation hearing every year

or, in the case of 6-year terms, three every two years, would be a pretty time consuming affair. And it certainly wouldn't do anything to prevent the politicization of the court.

[JanMichael]

16. Other: Yes it should be lifetime* but there should also be a retirement age or competency...

...requirement too.

Make it 70 for mandatory retirement HOWEVER if we want to extend that beyond 70 then racket-ball competency (meaning the defeat of a local 18 year old tournament champ) followed by solving a Rubic's Cube within 30 minutes should be done after 70 years old to stay empowered to dictate the life's of millions of people.

[demigoddess]

17. it is hard to decide but I think ten years is a good fit because they should be

mature before being selected and then there is the danger of senility or alzheimers. Not to mention that the justices should not be forced to work while deathly ill which also could have an effect.

[JBoy]

19. Make it like Survivor. Every 4 years, the public votes one of them out.

[undeterred]

21. On Survivor, they vote each other out.

That would not be good.

[defendandprotect]

22. I voted for IMPEACHMENT ... because there was no option for "not sure."

I'm sure about impeachment --

but I've always been able to see the value of a life term in that -- we were told --

it freed the Justice from contemporary pressures, whatever.

I really don't believe that any longer -- I do think weneed term limits -- but what we can

see of any decision we make it depends on who's in control of government.

IF WE TRULY HAVE A PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT . . . then it doesn't matter -- we would get someone

qualified and fair, presumably. However, looking back at history, it seems these have always

been pay-offs of some kind; with expectations?

Look how Earl Warren was used in Warren Commission!? Obviously they were able to

manipulate him.

When you have a fascist Congress and Presidency, no matter how you get it -- you'll "get it"!

We were taken down this fascist road by secret programs post WWII --

by not early on recognizing the corruptive and fascist powers of capitalism --

by not sufficiently prosecuting those on the right who would do harm to democracy and

people's government.

But, weren't our very beginnings -- the Constitution itself, fascist?

This has been a long battle by the many against the few --

Right now the few have tight control of our government and its agencies -- and so I don't

see that changing any of this now makes any difference -- only IMPEACHMENT would, IMO!

[Obamanaut]

24. Term limits for all elected officials. I voted 10 for SCOTUS. n/t