• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court? [W:18]

Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

  • Fine as is, lifetime appointments

    Votes: 19 67.9%

  • Limited terms, one term only

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Limited terms, but allow multiple terms if re-confirmed

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Total voters
    28
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Ockham said:
Anything to step away from your past eh? Too funny....
Click to expand...

what is funny is that there are stupid people who think that conservative and Democrat are mutually exclusive. What is funny is the lack of knowledge of the past while saying others are lying.

Again the 1964 Civil rights act had more Democrats vote for it than against it. That is a fact...so if you choose to be ignorant fine. But don't vomit it all over the board.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Sababa said:
what is funny is that there are stupid people who think that conservative and Democrat are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Fact is Southern Democrats revolted against the Civil Rights amendments that were going through Congress at the time. They were Democrats like Sen Byrd, the famous KKK member and Democratic Senator from West Virginia. I won't let you step away from owning that.

Sababa said:
What is funny is the lack of knowledge of the past while saying others are lying.
Click to expand...
The lie is yours. If it were up to Southern Democrats, the Civil Rights Movement would never have been signed. Own it.

Have nice day! :2wave:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

If there was a limit I'd say it'd need to be something like 20 years, with no ability to reup and disqualify you from any future elected federal office.

That would guarantee that there term would be up AT LEAST 2 presidents after the one who appointed them, giving plenty of time for the sway of power and views of the nation to shift a fair bit and making it unlikely that the President who appointed them's spiritual successor (VP) would be the president whose replacing them.

It would make it a long enough term and stipulations that it would likely not be subject to significant political influence. It would also be long enough that it'd be worth while putting on a younger person, while not making the impact of putting an older, but great, selection onto the court lessened compared to putting a significantly younger candidate.

I could absolutely see a 20 year, one term, disqualified from federal elected office type of limit be placed on in a successful manner. Anything less than that would be troublesome.
 
I've never understood lifetime appointments.
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

A quick count ( possible miscounted by myself ) of SC justices shows that out 112 Justices that 13 served 30 years or more ,
25 served from 21 to 29 years and the rest including a few current members severed 20 years or less.


While the justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life, some choose to leave the Court before their death: a total of 54 have retired or resigned.

The average age of newly appointed justices is about 53 years old.
Historically, the average length of service on the Court has been less than 15 years; however, since 1970 the average length of service has increased to about 26 years.[9]
Click to expand...

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would agree to a term limit of between 20 to 30 years and retirement at age 80.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

No............ Never!!!
 
Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

jamesrage said:
it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution
Click to expand...

And who exactly should be in charge of determining whether the justice went against the constitution? Whoever you pick, you're going to end up in the exact same situation you are now, with decisions influenced by personal ideology, you'll just have another group of people involved.

As much as you might want justices that judge things based solely on their interpretation of the constitution, it's completely unrealistic. People are biased about things, and none of us are very good at preventing our bias from influencing our thinking.

I do agree that justices should be appointed for life though. I think it limits somewhat the degree to which politics affects their opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom