• 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 Justices be lifetime appointments?

Keridan

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
4,183
Reaction score
2,151
Location
Raleigh NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course this thread is prompted by my regularly checking on the health of RBG and wishing her the best. However, please realize the thread is NOT about RBG! It's not about any serving or past Justice in any court.

Are lifetime appointments a good thing? I totally understand the logic. They should never have to worry about their job. However, isn't the same thing accomplished by giving an age limit or a term limit and one appointment per life?

I'm looking for honest input. The current situation has people risking their lives trying to survive long enough for a president who will appoint someone from the same party. It has people serving well beyond the reasonable time of service and decaying on the bench in an attempt to serve their country.

Wouldn't we be doing them more service by saying they serve until the legal age of retirement or a 20 year appointment?
 
Of course this thread is prompted by my regularly checking on the health of RBG and wishing her the best. However, please realize the thread is NOT about RBG! It's not about any serving or past Justice in any court.

Are lifetime appointments a good thing? I totally understand the logic. They should never have to worry about their job. However, isn't the same thing accomplished by giving an age limit or a term limit and one appointment per life?

I'm looking for honest input. The current situation has people risking their lives trying to survive long enough for a president who will appoint someone from the same party. It has people serving well beyond the reasonable time of service and decaying on the bench in an attempt to serve their country.

Wouldn't we be doing them more service by saying they serve until the legal age of retirement or a 20 year appointment?

IMO, yes they should remain lifetime appointments subject to impeachment.

Why? One reason is "Stability." Yes, IMO regardless of political or non-political lean when dealing with lifetime appointees we can get a general sense on how each is likely to rule on various issues and why they justify such rulings. That means we can depend on them to maintain stable relationships based on their understanding and interpretation history.

Another? Freedom from outside political influence. Especially that of the "court of public opinion." Elected judges are dependent on holding office at the will of the electorate. That means they are subject to political pressure concerning criminal and civil cases that come before them. Those who make "unpopular" rulings, regardless of how legally sound they may otherwise be, could find themselves voted out of office.

Recall, Justices can still be impeached for malfeasance or misfeasance in office. However, absent that they remain free of any other obligation than to rule based on their understanding of the law and precedent.
 
I don't see any real problem with lifetime appointments. Justices die like everyone else or simply reach a point where they want to retire like many do in all walks of life.


What I do have a problem with are activist groups judge shopping to further their agenda and where judges also become activists overstep their boundaries legislating on the bench rather than doing their job to simply interpret it as it stands.

Look elections have consequences. We are seeing a transformation of the federal courts the last two years being filled with jurists who are constitutionalists who see the Constitution as a road map on the way to go and not the mindset that the Constitution is a living breathing document. The transformation is real and the left who tend to view the Constitution as a living breathing document are really concerned. That is why confirmation hearings have become so contentious in the previous two decades. And now with an aging Supreme court with Ginsberg now battling some health issues, they are terrified that Trump will be able to pick another SC jurists.


If you follow this stuff like I do, you would know that Trump's choice to fill Kavanaugh's old position is being met with all kinds of resistance from the left yet the nominee is a female and a woman of color. Neomi Rao an Indian American female and a conservative.
 
IMO, yes they should remain lifetime appointments subject to impeachment.

Why? One reason is "Stability." Yes, IMO regardless of political or non-political lean when dealing with lifetime appointees we can get a general sense on how each is likely to rule on various issues and why they justify such rulings. That means we can depend on them to maintain stable relationships based on their understanding and interpretation history.

Another? Freedom from outside political influence. Especially that of the "court of public opinion." Elected judges are dependent on holding office at the will of the electorate. That means they are subject to political pressure concerning criminal and civil cases that come before them. Those who make "unpopular" rulings, regardless of how legally sound they may otherwise be, could find themselves voted out of office.

Recall, Justices can still be impeached for malfeasance or misfeasance in office. However, absent that they remain free of any other obligation than to rule based on their understanding of the law and precedent.

I totally understand your points. I'm just not sure they require lifetime appointments to function that way. I still think it should be a very long appointment and they should never be in a situation to be seeking a new appointment.

I really don't believe they should have any new reasons for impeachment or political pressure. But we have folks holding out till 90 and seriously risking their health because they are so afraid of who might come next.

I don't see any real problem with lifetime appointments. Justices die like everyone else or simply reach a point where they want to retire like many do in all walks of life.


What I do have a problem with are activist groups judge shopping to further their agenda and where judges also become activists overstep their boundaries legislating on the bench rather than doing their job to simply interpret it as it stands.

Look elections have consequences. We are seeing a transformation of the federal courts the last two years being filled with jurists who are constitutionalists who see the Constitution as a road map on the way to go and not the mindset that the Constitution is a living breathing document. The transformation is real and the left who tend to view the Constitution as a living breathing document are really concerned. That is why confirmation hearings have become so contentious in the previous two decades. And now with an aging Supreme court with Ginsberg now battling some health issues, they are terrified that Trump will be able to pick another SC jurists.


If you follow this stuff like I do, you would know that Trump's choice to fill Kavanaugh's old position is being met with all kinds of resistance from the left yet the nominee is a female and a woman of color. Neomi Rao an Indian American female and a conservative.

See above for my opinions about lifetime appointments. I don't think they are horrible, but I feel we could do a little better.

Regarding activist judges, I'm no fan, but I think the problem does get a bit exaggerated. Any jurist is going to let their mindset affect how they interpret things and they will often be chosen for appointment based on their tendencies. No jurist is free of this, but some do a better job of being neutral.

Still, I'm not sure how their leans should affect their span of appointment.
 
Of course this thread is prompted by my regularly checking on the health of RBG and wishing her the best. However, please realize the thread is NOT about RBG! It's not about any serving or past Justice in any court.

Are lifetime appointments a good thing? I totally understand the logic. They should never have to worry about their job. However, isn't the same thing accomplished by giving an age limit or a term limit and one appointment per life?

I'm looking for honest input. The current situation has people risking their lives trying to survive long enough for a president who will appoint someone from the same party. It has people serving well beyond the reasonable time of service and decaying on the bench in an attempt to serve their country.

Wouldn't we be doing them more service by saying they serve until the legal age of retirement or a 20 year appointment?

It depends, I need a baseline year to determine how many GOP v Dem judges we’d average before I answer this question
 
It depends, I need a baseline year to determine how many GOP v Dem judges we’d average before I answer this question

I was gonna post something sarcastic like that. Bravo.
 
Of course this thread is prompted by my regularly checking on the health of RBG and wishing her the best. However, please realize the thread is NOT about RBG! It's not about any serving or past Justice in any court.

Are lifetime appointments a good thing? I totally understand the logic. They should never have to worry about their job. However, isn't the same thing accomplished by giving an age limit or a term limit and one appointment per life?

I'm looking for honest input. The current situation has people risking their lives trying to survive long enough for a president who will appoint someone from the same party. It has people serving well beyond the reasonable time of service and decaying on the bench in an attempt to serve their country.

Wouldn't we be doing them more service by saying they serve until the legal age of retirement or a 20 year appointment?

I'd say yes but I'd make it 25 years or until the age of 80. The odd year of 25 limits the number being divide by 4 to give either party an advantage. And the age limit is to ensure their effectiveness and have a heavy case load (cuz they hear way to little amount of cases) while also keeping there sharpness and provides for another dynamic on when a judge leaves. But then again im also for term limits in congress as well, new people, new blood, so we stop being governed by elitists and more by the people.
 
I'd say yes but I'd make it 25 years or until the age of 80. The odd year of 25 limits the number being divide by 4 to give either party an advantage. And the age limit is to ensure their effectiveness and have a heavy case load (cuz they hear way to little amount of cases) while also keeping there sharpness and provides for another dynamic on when a judge leaves. But then again im also for term limits in congress as well, new people, new blood, so we stop being governed by elitists and more by the people.

Yep... I don't have much to add to this. Good post and I agree with just about all of it.
 
Yes. I'm good with lifetime appts.

There are mechanisms available if necessary to remove them.
 
Lifetime: absolutely.

The benefits outweigh the harms. Anyone arguing otherwise would do well to consider what has happened re: Garland, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.



The worse thing we can have is constitutional interpretation shifting faster. And I mean that in each direction. I want a balanced court. Second best, liberal-leaning (because duh), worst, hard conservative. That's under the current scheme. Far worse would be limited terms that guarantee even more shake-ups.

You people need to realize, really, that these judges do not say "I'm a liberal" or "I'm a conservative", then "how can I make my side win?" They don't. They're labeled based on which political side their opinions usually favor, but that doesn't have anything to do with their decisionmaking process. Some have philsophies I disagree with and approach decisions in ways I don't like, but they're doing it because they mean it. They have a defensible point even if I think the argument fails. They - at least SCOTUS - does not make **** up.

I've seen bad decisions. I've seen dishonest decisions in mid-level state courts. But the bias isn't liberal vs. conservative. It's anti-accused-criminal. It's anti-reversing-convictions. That sort of thing.





Your own biases have led you to get justice wrong. There are many problems. They aren't the problems you're looking for.

But hey...maybe I'm just a lying lawyer, angling to eventually impose my political will after becoming a judge. ;)
 
Should Justices be lifetime appointments?
Yes. The purpose of lifetime appointment is to remove political pressure from their decisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom