Ending Life tenure on SCOTUS

[Salty]

The Washington Post Editorial board wrote an editorial about ending life time appointments on the SCOTUS.
The Post recommends 18 years. -- is 18 years - too little or too long or just right?
Or should it by age: Age 70, 75, 80, 85?

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices

Open for discussiosn

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't really see a need to change it.

 

[canadyjd]

The Washington Post Editorial board wrote an editorial about ending life time appointments on the SCOTUS.
The Post recommends 18 years. -- is 18 years - too little or too long or just right?
Or should it by age: Age 70, 75, 80, 85?

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices

Open for discussiosn

Personally, I would support a constitutional amendment with a minimum age of 60 at the time of they are sworn and a maximum age of 80. They would be required to retire at the end of the term in which they turned 80.

peace to you

 

[just-want-peace]

Where I worked for some 30 years, it was mandatory retirement at 70. I all my years I saw one 1 case that, IMO, made a productive employee leave.
So, yes, I agree that a mandatory retirement should be in place. As to the limits, both entrance AND exit, I leave to others. But the ratio (roughly) of getting rid of a good employee vs. getting rid of "less" capable employees was about 1 good to 15-20 "less" good!
I can think of no good system, other than age, that would not be exploited by politics.
Sad, but true!!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ginsburg was 87 when she died still a sitting Justice. What limits were the Dem Progressive Left or their MSM clamoring for while she was on the Court? The Dems are not interested in any limitations, except those that would limit their opposition.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The Washington Post Editorial board wrote an editorial about ending life time appointments on the SCOTUS.
The Post recommends 18 years. -- is 18 years - too little or too long or just right?
Or should it by age: Age 70, 75, 80, 85?

Washington Post calls for term limits for Supreme Court justices

Open for discussiosn

It seems that term limits are pretty much accepted by most Americans. I think they should be put in place for the Supreme Court as well. Having 90 year old justices is not a good thing. I also think the previous rule (not law) to require one of the SC appointment's two Senators to support their appointment should be used again as it was before Trump. He also by-passed requiring a passing grade from the American Bar Association for federal judge appointments. A number of Trump's appointments got unacceptable ratings.

 

[AustinC]

I don't really see a need to change it.

Agreed
I would consider a compromise on a 20 year limit if Congress had a 2 term limit to the Senate and a 4 term limit to the House.

 

[Salty]

Agreed
I would consider a compromise on a 20 year limit if Congress had a 2 term limit to the Senate and a 4 term limit to the House.

I love that compromise - except I would give the House 5 terms

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...I also think the previous rule (not law) to require one of the SC appointment's two Senators to support their appointment should be used again as it was before Trump. He also by-passed requiring a passing grade from the American Bar Association for federal judge appointments. A number of Trump's appointments got unacceptable ratings.

Here we go again. The ABA is politically biased, leaning Dem Progressive Left. Why would Trump or any other reasonable person base nominations on the political views of such an organization? There is no good reason.

 

[canadyjd]

It seems that term limits are pretty much accepted by most Americans. I think they should be put in place for the Supreme Court as well. Having 90 year old justices is not a good thing. I also think the previous rule (not law) to require one of the SC appointment's two Senators to support their appointment should be used again as it was before Trump. He also by-passed requiring a passing grade from the American Bar Association for federal judge appointments. A number of Trump's appointments got unacceptable ratings.

The constitution doesn’t allow one Senator to stop a nominee. The constitution doesn’t say anything about the American Bar association giving their approval.

In fact, the constitution doesn’t even require a judge/justice to have a law degree, though it’s probably a good idea to have some background in law.

peace to you

 

[FollowTheWay]

The constitution doesn’t allow one Senator to stop a nominee. The constitution doesn’t say anything about the American Bar association giving their approval.

In fact, the constitution doesn’t even require a judge/justice to have a law degree, though it’s probably a good idea to have some background in law.

peace to you

The Constitution doesn't set the number of Supreme Court justices nor provide for a filibuster either.

 

[canadyjd]

The Constitution doesn't set the number of Supreme Court justices nor provide for a filibuster either.

Correct. However, our system of law is based on the idea of precedence.

That is, how cases are decided prior is the expected decision unless overwhelmingly compelling conditions exist to change it.

So, we’ve had nine justices on the SCOTUS for about 150 years. To ignore that precedence to add justices you need overwhelmingly compelling need to do so.

The same can be said of the filibuster.

Loosing an election, and/or loosing your majority in the court or Senate to push your agenda does not meet that criteria.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Correct. However, our system of law is based on the idea of precedence.

That is, how cases are decided prior is the expected decision unless overwhelmingly compelling conditions exist to change it.

So, we’ve had nine justices on the SCOTUS for about 150 years. To ignore that precedence to add justices you need overwhelmingly compelling need to do so.

The same can be said of the filibuster.

Loosing an election, and/or loosing your majority in the court or Senate to push your agenda does not meet that criteria.

peace to you

The same can be argued about the two precedents that Trump broke, requiring a SC nominee to be supported by one of their Senators and not adding a justice right before (actually during) the election for president. His response to questions was, "We have the power."

 

[Yeshua1]

The Constitution doesn't set the number of Supreme Court justices nor provide for a filibuster either.

IF Trump and the Republicans had advocated for the packing the court and court limits, agree with them?

 

[Yeshua1]

The same can be argued about the two precedents that Trump broke, requiring a SC nominee to be supported by one of their Senators and not adding a justice right before (actually during) the election for president. His response to questions was, "We have the power."

Neither was an actual requirement, and if it was on the other shoe, the Dems would have ramrodded their pick in if they had the votes then to do it!

 

[canadyjd]

The same can be argued by the two precedents that Trump broke, requiring a SC nominee to be supported by one of their Senators and not adding a justice right before (actually during) the election for president. His response to questions was, "We have the power."

Not exactly true. When a vacancy occurs during an election year, the precedence is the President nominates a replacement and if the Senate is of the same party, they confirm. That has happened 19 of 20 times it has occurred (if memory serves).

It was Democrats, under Senate majority leader Ried, that broke precedence concerning filibuster of judicial nominees.

The Dems were warned at the time they would regret their decision, and now they have.

peace to you

 

[FollowTheWay]

Not exactly true. When a vacancy occurs during an election year, the precedence is the President nominates a replacement and if the Senate is of the same party, they confirm. That has happened 19 of 20 times it has occurred (if memory serves).

It was Democrats, under Senate majority leader Ried, that broke precedence concerning filibuster of judicial nominees.

The Dems were warned at the time they would regret their decision, and now they have.

peace to you

Never before during voting which is what the Republicans did in 2020.

 

[canadyjd]

Never before during voting which is what the Republicans did in 2020.

That is simply untrue. 19 of 20 times Presidents made the nomination and they were confirmed, in an election year, if of the same party.

It was the Dems, under Harry Reid, that broke the precedence of filibuster of judicial nominees, which they now regret.

peace to you

 

[FollowTheWay]

That is simply untrue. 19 of 20 times Presidents made the nomination and they were confirmed, in an election year, if of the same party.

It was the Dems, under Harry Reid, that broke the precedence of filibuster of judicial nominees, which they now regret.

peace to you

Maybe you're reading but not comprehending. Trump's last SC appt. was "confirmed" by the Senate after people were voting using early voting and absentee ballots for president. That has never happed before.

Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates - Wikipedia
Following the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as her replacement on September 26, 2020. Exactly a month later on October 26, 2020, Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 52–48.

Early voting dates, 2020 - Ballotpedia