Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

[Mr. Invisible]

Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.

The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

So what are people's thoughts on the matter?

Personally, I'm completely okay with this. I don't think that anyone should have life time appointments, institutions always need fresh blood with new and different ways of thinking.

 

[Court Jester]

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

So what are people's thoughts on the matter?

Democrats in the HoR are babies. If they didn't have their current jobs they would out rioting and burning stores and stealing tennis shoes.

Personally, I'm completely okay with this. I don't think that anyone should have life time appointments, institutions always need fresh blood with new and different ways of thinking.

Lifetime appointment for the highest court in the land is one way to insulate jurists from being politically influenced. And besides, just because a SCTOUS judge is nominated by a president of one party doesn't mean they will vote the way that president may think. That happens many times.

 

[Yakshi]

There are many good reasons for an 18-year rule, and there aren't many good reasons for a lifetime appointment.

In a debate, it'd be too lopsided a discussion to bother having.

But it's still an interesting question. At least we'll get the benefit of watching Trump supporters type incoherent garbage while trying to practice their critical thinking.

 

[CLAX1911]

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

So what are people's thoughts on the matter?

Personally, I'm completely okay with this. I don't think that anyone should have life time appointments, institutions always need fresh blood with new and different ways of thinking.

I'm okay with term limits. I think there should be medical discharges as well so we don't have a judge that can't hold her head up or stay awake.

I wouldn't be opposed to electing judges.

 

[SkyChief]

Yesterday (July 26th) House democrats introduced a bill to limit tenure of SCOTUS justices to 18 years.

The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act requires that after 18 years, Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume "senior" status.

To my understanding, this means that "senior" Justices still enjoy all the status, perks and bennies of being a SCOTUS justice, but they would no longer rule on cases brought before the Court.

If for some reason the number of active Jurors dips below 9, then the most senior retired Justice would serve pro-tem until the seat is filled.

Clearly, the objective of this bill is to force Justice Clarence Thomas into retirement.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...mocrats-supreme-court-legislation/ar-AA1021gw

 

[Cope]

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

So what are people's thoughts on the matter?

Personally, I'm completely okay with this. I don't think that anyone should have life time appointments, institutions always need fresh blood with new and different ways of thinking.

While I agree with term limits for any and all governmental offices, 18 years may be close enough to negotiate around BUT (the Cardi B, Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, J-Lo sized) BUT, they don't have the power to change that by bill alone, do they?

 

[Craig234]

I'm not sure yet. First reaction is positive, but we should recognize this isn't a specific solution to the situation. Imagine Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the court being a key vote, and this move had pushed her off the court replaced by Amy Barrett. It would both get rid of some of the best Justices in history as well as terrible ones.

The problem is less the lifetime appointment than the corruption of the appointment process, huge amounts spent to put constitutional saboteur radicals on the court, as Sen. Whitehouse has explained.

 

[Court Jester]

This could be done if congress passed a new rule, but the Senate is not going to go along, there just aren't enough votes to pull it off for the Democrats in the Senate right now, and why would Republicans give up power/influence in the court while they have it?

Democrats should have put this plan forward during the many times they controlled the congress, and the only reason they didn't was they assumed the current methodology would benefit them. Now they just have sour grapes. Scalia died and the dems figured they would replace him with a liberal, but they got outplayed by the Republicans by the Republicans using the Dems' own game in the Senate to best them. Then Ginsberg refused to step aside when she could have, and that came back to haunt the dems a 2nd time in short order, and how they are crying foul.

 

[Greenbeard]

At this point, term limits alone aren’t going to do it. The complete collapse of the court’s legitimacy can only be fixed by reconstituting it.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yesterday (July 26th) House democrats introduced a bill to limit tenure of SCOTUS justices to 18 years.

The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act requires that after 18 years, Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume "senior" status.

To my understanding, this means that "senior" Justices still enjoy all the status, perks and bennies of being a SCOTUS justice, but they would no longer rule on cases brought before the Court.

If for some reason the number of active Jurors dips below 9, then the most senior retired Justice would serve pro-tem until the seat is filled.

Clearly, the objective of this bill is to force Justice Clarence Thomas into retirement.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...mocrats-supreme-court-legislation/ar-AA1021gw

"Clearly" why? Because that's your opinion of the motive?

As difficult as passing something like this would be, attempting to apply it retroactively would be impossible. Not an option.

 

[BirdinHand]

Won't pass.


Just more grand standing.

 

[Moon]

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

So what are people's thoughts on the matter?

Personally, I'm completely okay with this. I don't think that anyone should have life time appointments, institutions always need fresh blood with new and different ways of thinking.

Amend the constitution first then Congress can do what it likes. Otherwise this is just another fundraising scheme.

 

[Roadvirus]

I wouldn't be opposed to electing judges.

And make them beholden to donors too? No thanks.

 

[CLAX1911]

And make them beholden to donors too? No thanks.

There would have to be term limits too. In my state we elect our state judges. It doesn't seem to be an issue but that's not the same thing.

 

[KingLeo]

Most all new polls show 65% to 75% of Americans favor term limits on SC justices.
I would agree.