Term Limits for SCOTUS

[GHook93]

Why should it be a lifetime appointment or until they decide to step down. After the president, SCOTUS are the most important figures in the U.S. Yet we allow some of them to remain there forever even if they show a wanton disregard for the separation of powers. Some, like Ginsburg, are so old and sickly that they can't be comprehending what is said to them not have the energy to research their opinions.

I say make it a 10 year term and then have a new appointment!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

Why should it be a lifetime appointment or until they decide to step down. After the president, SCOTUS are the most important figures in the U.S. Yet we allow some of them to remain there forever even if they show a wanton disregard for the separation of powers. Some, like Ginsburg, are so old and sickly that they can't be comprehending what is said to them not have the energy to research their opinions.

I say make it a 10 year term and then have a new appointment!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I disagree with some of your analysis, there is no Constitutional requirement that the appointments be for a lifetime- and with advances in medicine it will be more and more likely we will end up with justices who are not physically or mentally competent to sit on the court.

Term limits make sense- I would make them longer than 10 years, but that is just an area to hash out.

 

[nuhuh]

I say leave it alone, if term limits were a serious priority we would have limited Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd from serving so long their aides became defacto Senators. The entire purpose of lifetime appointments in the judiciary was because the other two branches of government are elected and the judiciary would never have to feel a responsibility to serve the majority will.
Is it necessary to point out that with a lifetime appointment neither party gets the opportunity to stack the court though many have tried? It is also important to note that if given a term rather than a life appointment, the judge might look beyond judicial service and might have their vote swayed for dubious reasons. A judiciary separate from the elected political process has an independence that allows it to focus on the law alone rather than fleeting political calculations.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I support the lifetime appointments. Imho the pros outweigh the cons. Maybe make it a little easier to remove one for health reasons...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Every high office should have term limits but Americans are too ignorant to demand them.

 

[easyt65]

Recent court rulings have demonstrated the need for Term Limits for the members of the SCOTUS. Both Justices Kennedy's and Scalia's last 2 final arguments/statements after the last 2 cases blasts fellow members for partisanly/biasedly exceding their judcial authority in taking actions and making decisions that oppose Constitution and Law.

The SCOTUS was once held with extreme regard, held above reproach. It is ironic that Chief Justice Roberts said in an interview that he was worried about the perception and legacy of the SCOTUS...which is evidence, perhaps, of when its decline began. The only thing the SCOTUS should be concerned with is the LAW and the Constitutional enforcement of the law. When anyone begine to worry about how they will be perceived in doing so they open themselves us to bias, pressure, influence, and decisions NOT based on the Constitution and law. This is why the statue of 'Lady Liberty' is wearing a blindfold. Unfortunately, as Kennedy and Scalia have alluded to, she now wears a blindfold t hide her eyes to what this nation is doing in 'her' name.

Term Limits! The President has them. Congress should have them. The SCOTUS should have them. NO ONE should be given endless time in positions of great power...power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why should it be a lifetime appointment or until they decide to step down.

Because that protects them, mostly, from the bullshit we call American Politics. It frees them up, not that they will necessarily, to make the best decisions they can. So far, so good.

 

[nuhuh]

We have a judicial system that has done just fine since the inception of the country. The only reason term limits becomes an issue is because some people feel threatened over the current composure of the court or the personal dislike of the decisions handed down. Judicial decisions done without bias over political calculus are far better than decisions done with pre-judgement pondering the stepping stone to a career beyond judicial service. We live with decisions we like and decisions we don't like, the country is fine and persons advocating term limits are just looking to punish a court where decisions made fairly are not good enough for them.

 

[Roadrunner]

Every high office should have term limits but Americans are too ignorant to demand them.

Term limits for elected officials are pablum for lazy voters, and only create more pols and more pensions to pay.

Term limits for appointed officials make sense.

 

[Davros]

Adding term limits to the Supreme Court would put our very form of government at risk.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Every high office should have term limits but Americans are too ignorant to demand them.

Term limits for elected officials are pablum for lazy voters, and only create more pols and more pensions to pay.

Term limits for appointed officials make sense.

Pensions can go too.

 

[Roadrunner]

Adding term limits to the Supreme Court would put our very form of government at risk.

Oh, horseshit.

 

[nuhuh]

Every high office should have term limits but Americans are too ignorant to demand them.

Term limits for elected officials are pablum for lazy voters, and only create more pols and more pensions to pay.

Term limits for appointed officials make sense.

Pensions can go too.

I agree, the entire idea of pensions before 65 and for minimum years of service need to be looked at. We also need to look at using secure computers so that elected officials can stay at home looking after their constituency, rather than chewing the fat with lobbyists who don't give a shit about anyone's constituency.

 

[GHook93]

Why should it be a lifetime appointment or until they decide to step down.

Because that protects them, mostly, from the bullshit we call American Politics. It frees them up, not that they will necessarily, to make the best decisions they can. So far, so good.

Hey dumbass they never run for election or reelection. Basically they have to have political appeal at the right time for that meets the ideology of the President at the time.

10 years and then they are out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jwoodie]

How about 20 year terms with 2 selected every Presidential term? (The Chief Justice could be selected in the 5th term.) Wouldn't ten year terms make it easier for a President to pack the court?

 

[GHook93]

How about 20 year terms with 2 selected every Presidential term? (The Chief Justice could be selected in the 5th term.) Wouldn't ten year terms make it easier for a President to pack the court?

I could live with that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nuhuh]

I haven't heard a persuasive argument as to WHY we need to change Supreme Court terms in the first place. Let's disregard any upcoming decisions by the court such as guns, abortion, health care, political donations, unions, since if that's your reason for supporting term limits you really have no business being part of the conversation. Now if there is a reason beyond those hot potato items, I would like to hear more. As it stands, the only real disqualifier is health and mental acuity and I would hope the court could handle that internally. If not, a congressional hearing for impeachment is appropriate and warranted but I can't remember anything like that ever happening on the Supreme Court before.