Forum Thread

Term Limits For SCOTUS

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Dockadams
    07-10-2018 11:16:45 AM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Dockadams
    2k
    0
    0
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There are no term limits for US Supreme Court justices. According to Article III, Section I, of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices hold their offices "during good behavior," meaning for life, as long as they don't commit an impeachable offense.

    I'd like our democrat lawmakers and some republican lawmakers (who would get onboard to this idea) to pursue amending our constitution to limit a term a supreme court justice can serve, a lifetime on the bench is too lengthy. I would like to see justices serve no more than two 2 year terms.

  • Dutch
    07-10-2018 12:47:49 PM
    Not Logged In
    Dutch
    9.6k
    1
    31
    Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    There are no term limits for US Supreme Court justices. According to Article III, Section I, of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices hold their offices "during good behavior," meaning for life, as long as they don't commit an impeachable offense.

    I'd like our democrat lawmakers and some republican lawmakers (who would get onboard to this idea) to pursue amending our constitution to limit a term a supreme court justice can serve, a lifetime on the bench is too lengthy. I would like to see justices serve no more than two 2 year terms.

    Dock, this is a part of all the things which are done the wrong way in the Constitution, because when it was written, situations which we have now, did not exist . Like I told Schmidt and others; that this document is completely outdated and not at all an "living" document as they do overseas. A "living" document does not thrive on "case laws" or "clauses"; therefore any deserving "case law" should be inserted in this document and written such way that it fits the base law and become part of the base law. "Amendments" make an "base law" also confusing, if it conflicts over time with reality, like the "second amendment". Also the enormous workload to do research afterwards as well complications in wording to research everything back to 1776 makes all of this very convoluted. But one thing is sure, the zillion "lawyers" here have made fortunes trying to explain/interpret all this "wording" mess through the centuries..
  • jaredsxtn
    07-11-2018 02:15:37 PM
    Not Logged In
    Strongly Liberal Democrat
    jaredsxtn
    6.2k
    103
    89
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't necessarily disagree with you Dock, but you and I know how exponentially difficult it is to change the Constitution.

    I think the better option would be for Democrats to pack the Courts whenever we get off our ass and vote again. The Constitution says nothing about the number of Justices that should comprise the Supreme Court or any other Federal Court. Well, that's if Republicans don't do it before we get a chance to.

  • TJ
    07-11-2018 06:26:56 PM
    Not Logged In
    Center Left
    TJ
    4.3k
    0
    2
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There should be limts. I don't expect that it will happen but hopefully it can be discussed further. Each side wants to maximize any perceived advantage.

    Not sure what I believe would be reasonable. 20 years seems significant.

  • Dockadams
    07-11-2018 06:38:33 PM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Dockadams
    2k
    0
    0
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I would propose that SCOTUS justices be elected to office or to the court every two years by voters, and not picked by presidents, which are politically biased, depending on whether we have a republican or a democrat president. That might or would take the nasty politics out of legal decisions.
  • lonely bird
    07-12-2018 08:18:50 AM
    Not Logged In
    lonely bird
    1k
    0
    8
    Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dock, I feel your pain. Madison warned of factions. Well, we immediately had factions after the ratification of the constitution. ALL decisions made in government of any consequence are political in nature. The rationale that lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS would remove politics from their decision-making was naive in the extreme, more proof that the founders were gods with feet of clay. Electing judges in any state is political. The same would be true of electing SCOTUS justices. The question becomes if we term limit them, which were I to do it would be say 15 or 20 years, would we be subject to constantly changing decisions. I don't know. I do know that the whole confirmation process has become a sham. From Roe v Wade being the sole basis for some senators to outright lying by nominees it has become theatre of the absurd.
  • Dutch
    07-12-2018 08:58:04 AM
    Not Logged In
    Dutch
    9.6k
    1
    31
    Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Dock, I feel your pain. Madison warned of factions. Well, we immediately had factions after the ratification of the constitution. ALL decisions made in government of any consequence are political in nature. The rationale that lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS would remove politics from their decision-making was naive in the extreme, more proof that the founders were gods with feet of clay. Electing judges in any state is political. The same would be true of electing SCOTUS justices. The question becomes if we term limit them, which were I to do it would be say 15 or 20 years, would we be subject to constantly changing decisions. I don't know. I do know that the whole confirmation process has become a sham. From Roe v Wade being the sole basis for some senators to outright lying by nominees it has become theatre of the absurd.
    Lonely, yes the whole thing is absurd; in a life span of about 90 years; the world changes, but not the "judges" they still live in 1800. Yes this "island" is crazy, with crazy antique laws.
  • Dockadams
    07-12-2018 09:31:00 AM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Dockadams
    2k
    0
    0
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote: Dock, I feel your pain. Madison warned of factions. Well, we immediately had factions after the ratification of the constitution. ALL decisions made in government of any consequence are political in nature. The rationale that lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS would remove politics from their decision-making was naive in the extreme, more proof that the founders were gods with feet of clay. Electing judges in any state is political. The same would be true of electing SCOTUS justices. The question becomes if we term limit them, which were I to do it would be say 15 or 20 years, would we be subject to constantly changing decisions. I don't know. I do know that the whole confirmation process has become a sham. From Roe v Wade being the sole basis for some senators to outright lying by nominees it has become theatre of the absurd.
    Lonely, yes the whole thing is absurd; in a life span of about 90 years; the world changes, but not the "judges" they still live in 1800. Yes this "island" is crazy, with crazy antique laws.
    Agreed. We're living in a society with antiquated laws, which should be changed from time to time, but we're stuck. or screwed, whichever way we can describe it.
Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts