Right now, as we all know, they are lifetime appointments. Should that be changed? Why or why not?
FYI -- this format is SO much better for creating polls.
I had serious problems with the filibuster and blue slips, but in all fairness they did have a relatively moderating effect on the choices of justices. Sure, there will always be judges with left and right leans, but a few exceptions aside they never got too crazy. Well, that's completely out the window now. Republicans can be as wack-a-doodle with their selections as they want and nothing can stop them.
In any case, you're going to get as many right wing fans of term limits as you will of adding court seats since the Right now has a lock on the courts for several generations, and obviously they're not going to give that up.
Finally, right wing judges outweigh left wing judges, over 215 appointed by Trump. What this means to me is that no re-balancing act or term limits will fix this, certainly not fast enough. The only solution is adding court seats if Democrats take the Senate and the White House in November. If Democrats feel like having a legislative and Executive agenda in 2021, then adding extra seats is their only choice.
And to people on my side of the political aisle who are uncomfortable with that solution because it seems too radical, offer me a better path forward that isn't adding courts but still gets you such policies as added voting rights, climate protection and a better healthcare policy. Because right now, with the current makeup of the courts...
I thought about this and am still up in the air about it. I think I would prefer a retirement age vs. term limits. Lifetime appointment was to take politics out of it, making the judge a free agent. But politics these days are always front and centered when it comes to the SCOTUS. What happens is whatever ideology, party, has the majority on the SCOTUS would be completely against term limits. The ideology, party who is in the minority on the SCOTUS is for term limits. All about politics.Right now, as we all know, they are lifetime appointments. Should that be changed? Why or why not?
FYI -- this format is SO much better for creating polls.
I thought about this and am still up in the air about it. I think I would prefer a retirement age vs. term limits. Lifetime appointment was to take politics out of it, making the judge a free agent. But politics these days are always front and centered when it comes to the SCOTUS. What happens is whatever ideology, party, has the majority on the SCOTUS would be completely against term limits. The ideology, party who is in the minority on the SCOTUS is for term limits. All about politics.
Perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 70 or there about. 65, 75, take your pick. A mandatory retirement age certainly would result in younger SCOTUS justices. I'm still up in the air, undecided about this and or term limits. Being politics will never be taken out of appointing SCOTUS justices, it probably doesn't matter. No matter with term limits or a mandatory retirement age or leaving the SCOTUS as it, one side or the other won't be happy.
One thing each side should remember, these things have a habit of biting those who proposed it biting them in the butt. The Republicans pushed through term limits on the president, then along comes Eisenhower who could have won a third, fourth term easily. Just like ex-majority leader, senator Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option. Then comes Trump and a GOP controlled senate who use it against the Democrats. Whichever choice one has, keep in mind that getting bit in the butt is bound to happen.
I thought about this. It sounds reasonable but then wouldn’t you run into the age discrimination law? I can’t imagine any SC justice ruling that it’s ok to discriminate based on age.I thought about this and am still up in the air about it. I think I would prefer a retirement age vs. term limits. Lifetime appointment was to take politics out of it, making the judge a free agent. But politics these days are always front and centered when it comes to the SCOTUS. What happens is whatever ideology, party, has the majority on the SCOTUS would be completely against term limits. The ideology, party who is in the minority on the SCOTUS is for term limits. All about politics.
Perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 70 or there about. 65, 75, take your pick. A mandatory retirement age certainly would result in younger SCOTUS justices. I'm still up in the air, undecided about this and or term limits. Being politics will never be taken out of appointing SCOTUS justices, it probably doesn't matter. No matter with term limits or a mandatory retirement age or leaving the SCOTUS as it, one side or the other won't be happy.
One thing each side should remember, these things have a habit of biting those who proposed it biting them in the butt. The Republicans pushed through term limits on the president, then along comes Eisenhower who could have won a third, fourth term easily. Just like ex-majority leader, senator Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option. Then comes Trump and a GOP controlled senate who use it against the Democrats. Whichever choice one has, keep in mind that getting bit in the butt is bound to happen.
I'm the type that believe in the old adage of what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Term limits for the president, fine. Then term limits for senators and the House of Representatives. Either that or discard term limits for the president.I have no problem with Presidential term limits so long as the EC system is used. A system that can consistently allow a minority of the people to choose the head of state can result in a nightmare scenario where term limits don't exist.
True, I hadn't thought of that.I thought about this. It sounds reasonable but then wouldn’t you run into the age discrimination law? I can’t imagine any SC justice ruling that it’s ok to discriminate based on age.
True, I hadn't thought of that.
I'm the type that believe in the old adage of what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Term limits for the president, fine. Then term limits for senators and the House of Representatives. Either that or discard term limits for the president.
If the people want to elect a president for a third term, let them as long as there is no term limits for congress.
Well, if they are going to become another legislative branch, then yes. It will cause lower court judges who seek SCOTUS to triangulate their opinions to show themselves in the best light.Right now, as we all know, they are lifetime appointments. Should that be changed? Why or why not?
FYI -- this format is SO much better for creating polls.
You might be right about that. However, safety issues become a factor. Still this only applies to commercial pilots. There are no restrictions for private.Aren’t there certain careers where there are age restrictions?
Airline pilots come to mind.
EDIT: the only group ever proposing changing things is the one in the minority........
Various term limits have been proposed for Supreme Court justices, from 12 - 18 years. If term limits had already been established when Ginsburg was confirmed in 1993, then several majority opinions may have had a very different outcome:
For example,
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt striking down Texas law on regulating abortion providers. This was a 5-3 decision.
- McGirt v. Oklahoma which affirmed Native American jurisdictions over reservations in Oklahoma. This was a 5- 4 decision.
- Herring v. United States to suppress evidence due to law enforcement's failure to update computer records. This was a 5- 4 decision.
Does this take into account Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy also being impacted by term limits?
I'm not an ideologue or an ultra partisan. As such I want checks and balance. With the nuclear option available these days, my best results for 2020 would be Biden president, the GOP retains the Senate along with the democrats retaining the house. That how I voted. I'm positive that if the democrats take all three, the presidency, the senate and the house, the last of minority rights in the senate will be stripped away. That will give the democrats carte blanche to do as they wish with no meaningful opposition at all. That I don't want. Of course this also goes for the Republicans, I don't want them in complete control either."Good for the goose good for the gander" arguments are unproductive slap fights. I'm coming at this from the position that I want three key legislature accomplishments should Democrats take over the Senate and the White House and keep the House, and the court makeup is a firewall against those bills. Term limits do nothing to combat that firewall.
I'm not an ideologue or an ultra partisan. As such I want checks and balance. With the nuclear option available these days, my best results for 2020 would be Biden president, the GOP retains the Senate along with the democrats retaining the house. That how I voted. I'm positive that if the democrats take all three, the presidency, the senate and the house, the last of minority rights in the senate will be stripped away. That will give the democrats carte blanche to do as they wish with no meaningful opposition at all. That I don't want. Of course this also goes for the Republicans, I don't want them in complete control either.
I want which ever party is in control to govern America as America as a whole and not govern just for their base which makes up approximately a third of all america by telling the other two thirds to go to Hades.
It was a complex answer, not simpleSo......what's your answer to THIS question?
If the GOP keeps the Senate, it will behave like it did under Obama. Pass nothing, do nothing, and have shut downs. I want the government to work. I want the courts to be moderate. The courts are way too far rightI'm not an ideologue or an ultra partisan. As such I want checks and balance. With the nuclear option available these days, my best results for 2020 would be Biden president, the GOP retains the Senate along with the democrats retaining the house. That how I voted. I'm positive that if the democrats take all three, the presidency, the senate and the house, the last of minority rights in the senate will be stripped away. That will give the democrats carte blanche to do as they wish with no meaningful opposition at all. That I don't want. Of course this also goes for the Republicans, I don't want them in complete control either.
I want which ever party is in control to govern America as America as a whole and not govern just for their base which makes up approximately a third of all america by telling the other two thirds to go to Hades.
Not at all. I'm just highlighting that term limits could/would impact decisions on many key cases across the spectrum.
It would, but it would lead to escalation. The Democrats could expand it to 11 or 13 whatever. Then when the GOP gains control, the presidency, senate and the house, they'll expand it to 15 or 17 or whatever number to suit their ideological bent. It's like ex-democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option. McConnell escalated it, expanded it to include the SCOTUS one the GOP gained the power to do so.Expanding the court still gives Republicans the ability to have a majority. Why wouldn't it?
Constitution says the remain " . . . on good behavior". I think lifetime appointment assures more consistency. The justices don't have to worry about pleasing any factions. Term limits on Senate and House is far more appealing.Right now, as we all know, they are lifetime appointments. Should that be changed? Why or why not?
FYI -- this format is SO much better for creating polls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?