• 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!

Term Limits for Supreme Court?

Term Limits for Supreme Court?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 29.5%
  • No

    Votes: 40 65.6%
  • Dont Care

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Total voters
    61

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ginsburg turns 85 this year! Shes been a justice for almost 30 years. Isnt it time to let someone else hold judicial power? A Republic does best when more peoples voices are represented in power. Same goes for Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, who have all had over 8000 days. And I dont care if its during a Democrat or Republicans term. Its time to shake it up. 20 years and done, let more people be Justices.
 
Mandatory retirement should be enacted all across government. Some of the Congress critters have trouble getting down the hall.
 
Maybe (not a poll choice offered). I would have to see the precise wording of the proposed constitutional amendment to make an informed decision. Assuming that it contained no grandfather (grandmother?) clause (you mentioned none) then red states would likely ratify immediately, since the POTUS is republicant, allowing blue states to delay ratification until a demorat was POTUS thus allowing them to stack the SCOTUS for 20 years.
 
Last edited:
Mandatory retirement should be enacted all across government. Some of the Congress critters have trouble getting down the hall.

That would not change much unless you established a maximum age for taking (keeping?) any government job.
 
I would have to see the precise wording of the proposed constitutional amendment to make an informed decision. Assuming that it contained no grandfather (grandmother?) clause (you mentioned none) then red states would likely ratify immediately, since the POTUS is republicant, allowing blue states to delay ratification until a demorat was POTUS thus allowing them to stack the SCOTUS for 20 years.

IMO, I'm sure there would be a grandfathered clause. Those on SCOTUS won't immediately be replaced if they are above (or below) the requirement to hold a seat on SCOTUS.

Better yet, take away some SCOTUS power. Let there be, for example, a corroborating vote needed from congress or the executive (or oh, my goodness, the people).
 
Ginsburg turns 85 this year! Shes been a justice for almost 30 years. Isnt it time to let someone else hold judicial power? A Republic does best when more peoples voices are represented in power. Same goes for Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, who have all had over 8000 days. And I dont care if its during a Democrat or Republicans term. Its time to shake it up. 20 years and done, let more people be Justices.

The problem with term limits, for presidential appointees, like supreme court justices, is the risk that the Justices who are installed will be based on short term and hardline political loyalty, and not on what is best for the country.

The potential negative affect can be seen via recent liberal judges who voted against Trump's immigration policies. The president has the Constitutional right to restrict immigration for national security reasons. Instead we had an appointed political hack judge, rule to ignore the Constitution in favor of left wing politics. DACA was not a real law created by Congress. It was an executive action, created by Obama. A political hack judge prevented the president from overriding an executive action, which is allowed by the Constitution. The result of term limit appointment would be lawlessness used to throw sand in the gears of the Constitution, ay least from the left, who hates the Constitution.

Picture the supreme court, composed of short duration political hack judges, who are put there to rule in ways that undermine the Constitution. The Democrats have already used lower judges to undermine the Constitution. They would also use the Supreme Court as a political tool. The Republicans may feel the need to do the same thing. For example, there is no reason, besides honor, that prevents a middle levelConservative judge, appointed by the Republicans, to get rid of abortion, or at least freeze it for months or years. Judges are lawyers and lawyers defend criminals as well as victims. It is not hard for a paid judge to defend a bad policy; make Jack the Ripper look like a alter boy. The result will be an unstable pendulum between build and destroy with the executive branch and an appointed Supreme court in charge.

Say Obama had been able to appoint all left wing justices to the supreme court for a 6 year term limit. He could have made their appointment contingent on ruling that a president can run for a third term. He could make impeachment no longer possible. Obama could then use the judges to tie up the election process, for appeal, through the election season, so there is no clear result and Obama gets to stay.

In the current system, lingering justices from other opposing administrations, who are there for life, would make the scam harder,since these justices are not beholden and are not afraid to be fired. They are also not afraid to loose their golden parachute or their backing in the next appointment cycle.
 
IMO, I'm sure there would be a grandfathered clause. Those on SCOTUS won't immediately be replaced if they are above (or below) the requirement to hold a seat on SCOTUS.

Better yet, take away some SCOTUS power. Let there be, for example, a corroborating vote needed from congress or the executive (or oh, my goodness, the people).
They didn't teach you about separation of branches in Civics, did they?
 
They didn't teach you about separation of branches in Civics, did they?

Well, SCOTUS could rule. That's separation of powers. Followed by a confirmation by congress. That's a separation. Followed by a veto or non-veto by the president. Separation. Followed by an affirmation by a qualifying percentage of the people. Separation.
 
They didn't teach you about separation of branches in Civics, did they?

Each branch could act separately. That's what separation of powers is. Please. Don't tell me congress is the only one who determines taxes or declares war (formal or informal). SCOTUS has declared taxes (ACA) and the president, it seems more likely these days, gets the US into wars.
 
Well, SCOTUS could rule. That's separation of powers. Followed by a confirmation by congress. That's a separation. Followed by a veto or non-veto by the president. Separation. Followed by an affirmation by a qualifying percentage of the people. Separation.
So say the President does something unconstitutional (unquestionably, pretty much everyone agrees, doesn’t matter what). The Supreme Court could rule against it (even unanimously), Congress could strongly vote in agreement but then the President could just veto the ruling and get on with whatever they were doing?
 
So say the President does something unconstitutional (unquestionably, pretty much everyone agrees, doesn’t matter what). The Supreme Court could rule against it (even unanimously), Congress could strongly vote in agreement but then the President could just veto the ruling and get on with whatever they were doing?

I think the powers of SCOTUS should go back to what the founding fathers intended in The Constitution. Just decide legal issues. Period.
 
So say the President does something unconstitutional (unquestionably, pretty much everyone agrees, doesn’t matter what). The Supreme Court could rule against it (even unanimously), Congress could strongly vote in agreement but then the President could just veto the ruling and get on with whatever they were doing?

Every president does something unconstitutional? That's your claim?
 
So say the President does something unconstitutional (unquestionably, pretty much everyone agrees, doesn’t matter what). The Supreme Court could rule against it (even unanimously), Congress could strongly vote in agreement but then the President could just veto the ruling and get on with whatever they were doing?

This is my three part answer: A 2/3 vote is needed in each house of congress to override a presidential veto. There, for paperview, another separation of powers in The Constitution that does the same thing.
 
Checks and balances requires separating institutional imperatives instead of causing them to overlap as often as possible.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
I think the powers of SCOTUS should go back to what the founding fathers intended in The Constitution. Just decide legal issues. Period.
Ruling on the constitutionality of government actions is a legal issue.

Every president does something unconstitutional? That's your claim?
No, I created a hypothetical example where a President did do something unconstitutional to demonstrate the flaw in your proposal of a Presidential veto over court rulings.
 
Checks and balances requires separating institutional imperatives instead of causing them to overlap as often as possible.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

It's being done more and more in American government. I guess being rationalized by SCOTUS, for example.

Congress who passed ACA didn't call it a tax. SCOTUS did.
 
Ginsburg turns 85 this year! Shes been a justice for almost 30 years. Isnt it time to let someone else hold judicial power? A Republic does best when more peoples voices are represented in power. Same goes for Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, who have all had over 8000 days. And I dont care if its during a Democrat or Republicans term. Its time to shake it up. 20 years and done, let more people be Justices.

2 6 year terms with an approval by the Senate (it would take a super majority to remove a Justice) after the first term. Once those terms are over, no Fed. jobs, no lobbyist job ever - you go back to the private sector.
 
Ginsburg turns 85 this year! Shes been a justice for almost 30 years. Isnt it time to let someone else hold judicial power? A Republic does best when more peoples voices are represented in power. Same goes for Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, who have all had over 8000 days. And I dont care if its during a Democrat or Republicans term. Its time to shake it up. 20 years and done, let more people be Justices.

The purpose of the life term for Supreme Court justices is independence from politics. For the most part this has functioned well, with conservative and liberal justices making most decisions on the merit of cases by law rather than sentiment. We do have a system of congressional impeachment which can come into play for a justice unable to perform. Impeachment is not only for punishment.

To desire the removal of a justice for reasons of long service and age, reeks of political interference. The purpose of the court is neither an issue of the form of governance, nor democratic representation. Its sole purpose is justice as defined by our Constitution. And you (generically) do not get to condemn a justice merely because of age or frailty, so long as the mind is clear and functionally performing for the job. Would you have rejected the brilliance of a mind like that of Stephen Hawking, simply because he was old and suffered from physically debilitating disease?
 
Maybe (not a poll choice offered). I would have to see the precise wording of the proposed constitutional amendment to make an informed decision. Assuming that it contained no grandfather (grandmother?) clause (you mentioned none) then red states would likely ratify immediately, since the POTUS is republicant, allowing blue states to delay ratification until a demorat was POTUS thus allowing them to stack the SCOTUS for 20 years.

I looked at in from an entirely rhetorical standpoint. You are correct - I don't want any one party replacing that many justices.
 
I looked at in from an entirely rhetorical standpoint. You are correct - I don't want any one party replacing that many justices.

It seems that the justices do much the same by (carefully?) timing their retirement based on which POTUS will replace them. One advantage of a 20 year term (or age) limit would be the randomness of who will be POTUS to replace them.
 
It seems that the justices do much the same by (carefully?) timing their retirement based on which POTUS will replace them. One advantage of a 20 year term (or age) limit would be the randomness of who will be POTUS to replace them.

True. And now we've seemingly entered a post-Scalia world where if the POTUS isn't of the party in control of the Senate, he/she shall not be able to appoint anyone to the SCOTUS. The "Mitch McConnell"rule? I think that's a horrible precedent.
 
The Supreme Court is disappointing to me. Because of its purpose and intent, the SCOTUS should be the one body we have that transcends politics. There should not be liberal or conservative justices. I dont necessarily put the blame on the politicians that installed them so much as the Justices themselves. When you accept a lifetime appointment to be on the Supreme Court you should be capable of rising above partisan ideology.

If the system worked properly, we wouldnt need term limits. Justices would stay on the court as long as they were competent and would step down when they were no longer effective as justices.
 
no

but i think they need a thorough medical evaluation done at least every other year once 60, and every year once 75 to include a mental health check

as long as they clear those, they can stay in my opinion till they want to leave

if the evaluation starts to show mental health issues (loss of memory, dementia, alzheimers, etc) then the doctor has to send them to a board that will make the determination on whether or not they are fit to continue

i dont one one man/woman making the determination....i want a split board of dems/reps and 2/3 must make same reccommendation
 
Mandatory retirement should be enacted all across government. Some of the Congress critters have trouble getting down the hall.
Congress already has term limits...2 and 6 years. The age and competency of any given member is a matter for their individual constituents. Hell, if we are going to start worrying about mobility as a standard for sitting congressmen, then we should consider a basic IQ test for them as well.

 
True. And now we've seemingly entered a post-Scalia world where if the POTUS isn't of the party in control of the Senate, he/she shall not be able to appoint anyone to the SCOTUS. The "Mitch McConnell"rule? I think that's a horrible precedent.

That is a tough call. Allowing a very liberal POTUS to assure a more liberal SCOTUS (for decades?), 8 months before a POTUS election, is a serious concern. The Mitch McConnell rule was not much different than the Harry Reid rule, if anything, Harry Reid was worse. So long as 5/4 SCOTUS rulings are treated much the same as constituional amendments this is very likley to continue. The people elcted the Senate just as much as the people elected the POTUS and they were intended as checks on each other's power.
 
Back
Top Bottom