Term Limits For SCOTUS Judges?

Carjosse said:

You could do what Canada does and have mandatory retirement at age 75 which I think is reasonable. Then for the most part you know exactly when they need replacing and you can avoid all the drama.

Click to expand...

That seems reasonable.

I fail to see how term limits would really improve things in any way. They'd still be ideologically appointed by the presidents. The way they decide cases wouldn't change.

What it would do is give the justices some extra incentives to not rule the way they would if they were looking at it impartially. They could be thinking about their next job or a political future.

It would also decrease the stability of the law. With justices constantly changing, the rulings would constantly vary back and forth based on who is in the White House at the time.

Anagram said:

I fail to see how term limits would really improve things in any way. They'd still be ideologically appointed by the presidents. The way they decide cases wouldn't change.

What it would do is give the justices some extra incentives to not rule the way they would if they were looking at it impartially. They could be thinking about their next job or a political future.

It would also decrease the stability of the law. With justices constantly changing, the rulings would constantly vary back and forth based on who is in the White House at the time.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Fact of the matter is that depending on the circumstances (usually whose in office) there will always be a perceived unfairness that benefits one side over the other. But the shoe can and does easily change feet anytime political parties change. That's just the nature of the SCOTUS and has worked well for us for centuries.

SIAP. I voted other. The Constitution never intended to give the courts power that was equal to the other 2 branches of government that were voted on by the people (executive, legislative). In today's government, SCOTUS HAS THE FINAL SAY..This is unconstitutional. To give ultimate power to 9 judges is, well, what the founders were trying to move away from with their intent to separate from England.

The Constitution gave SCOTUS 2 responsibilities:
(1)determine if a law or provision is constitutional
(2) interpret The Constitution from previous The Constitution documentation
That means: No ideology, no goofy precedent causes a ruling, nebulous The Constitution wording isn't 'stretched' for your case, etc.

If the powers of SCOTUS are, IMO, unconstitutionally enlarged, term limits need to be put in place for judges.
And maybe a veto possibility of judicial decisions put in place for the people. This government was to be for the people.

Dragonfly said:

In light of current events, let's revisit the DP members views on term limits for SCOTUS judges.

Do you feel life-time appointments are reasonable, or idiotic?

What time frame would you agree to as reasonable for a term limit if one was to be set in place?

Or, perhaps you'd feel more comfortable with a "maximum age limit"?

What do you think is the best path forward?
Some kind of limit, or just leave it as it stands now?

Click to expand...

Unchanged - as is.

The reason is quite sound: there is limited partisan hackery, they will see significant maturity per the position and come to the know the concept and procedures well. And it means that the timing of each new nominee is random. There's no campaigning, vying, selling, and other such things are not possible or much less likely.

No change.