Should SCOTUS have term limits?

[Court Jester]

As it stands the point is moot because Republicans have structured things so that even if Democrats won the White House and every single seat in both chambers of Congress, none of their bills would survive court challenges, especially HR1. Democrats won't have a choice but to expand the courts.

Not even true. ACA/Obamacare survived even with a Conservative majority. Then Trump gets elected and even with both house and senate he couldn't get Obamacare repealed--- even after the Republicans promised to do that for over 6 years.

The system works. The game is not rigged.

 

[Lykaios]

Wouldn't age limits force the age of nominees down?

Yes...but why should that matter?

 

[Perotista]

Wait just a minute, Reid did not use the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees, that was McConnell.

Correct, It's called escalation. If Reid and the democrats thought they'd be in control of the senate forever or if the GOP regained control of the senate that the nuclear option wouldn't be expanded, escalated, they were the most stupid politicians on this face of the earth.

If the Democrats expand the SCOTUS, expect the Republicans to do the same. Once the tooth paste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back. Reid squeezed that tube dry and McConnell took advantage of it. Escalation happens all the time. Once someone, some country, some political party uses something for the first time, someone else, another country, the other political party will do the same with more, escalation until we have a full blown nuclear war which now exists between the two major parties.

 

[Perotista]

I am not old enough nor followed politics long enough to know the history of these fights. I know I want the government to work, and it does not appear to work with a McConnell in charge of the senate and this is with the filibuster, right?

I am not convinced how things could get better in this state

Things worked just fine under different leadership in the senate with the filibuster at full hilt. The problem as I see it is the leadership of both parties are putting the good of the party above the good of the country. In the past senate leaders such as Daschle and Lott, Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, respected each other, could work with each other and were more than willing to compromise playing the game of give and take. None of those would have ever dreamed of using the nuclear option let alone use it setting the precedence we have today.

Until we get back to how the leaders of each major party viewed each other, we're going down the escalation path full tilt. Both party leaders view the other party as this nations number one enemy, out to destroy this nation. That has to ceased or both will accomplish the destruction. This my way or the highway must end. We have to get back to compromising. Today neither party, their leaders are unwilling to do so.

My two cents anyway.

 

[Lykaios]

Correct, It's called escalation. If Reid and the democrats thought they'd be in control of the senate forever or if the GOP regained control of the senate that the nuclear option wouldn't be expanded, escalated, they were the most stupid politicians on this face of the earth.

If the Democrats expand the SCOTUS, expect the Republicans to do the same. Once the tooth paste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back. Reid squeezed that tube dry and McConnell took advantage of it. Escalation happens all the time. Once someone, some country, some political party uses something for the first time, someone else, another country, the other political party will do the same with more, escalation until we have a full blown nuclear war which now exists between the two major parties.

In fairness, Reid resorted to the “nuclear option” due to unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by the Republicans.

 

[Perotista]

If Democrats gain power this November and pass HR1, they would eliminate the ability of Republicans to "win" elections through voter suppression. Republicans would be forced to win elections through the superiority of their ideas, like Democrats have to. If Republicans can win under those circumstances, then they deserve to do what they want with the courts.

As it stands the point is moot because Republicans have structured things so that even if Democrats won the White House and every single seat in both chambers of Congress, none of their bills would survive court challenges, especially HR1. Democrats won't have a choice but to expand the courts.

Have it your way, but I would place all the blame for what you're talking about on the shoulders of Reid. If you like going to 13 SCOTUS justices, then 17, then 21, then 25 or more... You want to jerk this country to the extreme left than once you lose power, let the other side jerk it to the extreme right.

If that's this country's political future, I want nothing to do with it. You certainly wouldn't have this problem with past party leaders. Both party leaders. Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, how could they work together and get things accomplish while Reid had to resort to the nuclear option, where McConnell expanded it, where escalation is the way of our political further? Is there anyone in Washington that thinks and put the country first, ahead of their political party. It sure doesn't look like it to me.

I really don't think either major political party will be happy until they destroy the other and if the country gets destroyed in the process, so be it. `I really don't think either party cares.

 

[Cardinal]

Have it your way, but I would place all the blame for what you're talking about on the shoulders of Reid. If you like going to 13 SCOTUS justices, then 17, then 21, then 25 or more... You want to jerk this country to the extreme left than once you lose power, let the other side jerk it to the extreme right.

If that's this country's political future, I want nothing to do with it. You certainly wouldn't have this problem with past party leaders. Both party leaders. Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, how could they work together and get things accomplish while Reid had to resort to the nuclear option, where McConnell expanded it, where escalation is the way of our political further? Is there anyone in Washington that thinks and put the country first, ahead of their political party. It sure doesn't look like it to me.

I really don't think either major political party will be happy until they destroy the other and if the country gets destroyed in the process, so be it. `I really don't think either party cares.

I have no interest in who to blame. Playing that game you basically go back to the dawn of time. It's a boring and tedious process I have no interest in engaging in.

What I'm looking at are the problems of what we have now and how to fix them. And the problems of now are an out-of-control pandemic, a climate crisis, a disaster of a healthcare system and a voting rights system that is unfairly advantaged toward a specific demographic and geographic minority. If Democrats have the institutional powers to fix these things then they will.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

If state courts have judge term limits, why not the SCOTUS?

Every time a Supreme Court justice dies, there is an even number of justices on the bench until a replacement is confirmed. There is obviously a reason all courts have odd numbers of judges. If there were term limits the President could be ready to nominate a justice without waiting for one to die or retire, allowing the SCOTUS to always have nine justices.

 

[Josie]

If state courts have judge term limits, why not the SCOTUS?

Every time a Supreme Court justice dies, there is an even number of justices on the bench until a replacement is confirmed. There is obviously a reason all courts have odd numbers of judges. If there were term limits the President could be ready to nominate a justice without waiting for one to die or retire, allowing the SCOTUS to always have nine justices.

I imagine presidents are always ready to nominate a justice just in case. They still have to go through the process and vote so it isn't like it would ever be immediate.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I imagine presidents are always ready to nominate a justice just in case. They still have to go through the process and vote so it isn't like it would ever be immediate.

If judges had term limits, Senators would be ready for the confirmation hearing and vote too. It would be a much quicker process. And they could do it during the lame duck period, so the seat would be filled as quickly as all other appointments.

Why does it take so long for the Senate to confirm a judge after she has been nominated by the President?

 

[Josie]

If judges had term limits, Senators would be ready for the confirmation hearing and vote too. It would be a much quicker process. And they could do it during the lame duck period, so the seat would be filled as quickly as all other appointments.

Why does it take so long for the Senate to confirm a judge after she has been nominated by the President?

That pesky word again ---- politics. There should be an appropriate vetting process, but many times the hold up is purely political. Just like now -- Dems want to hold off on it because of the election coming up. When it was Obama, the Reps wanted to hold off on it.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That pesky word again ---- politics. There should be an appropriate vetting process, but many times the hold up is purely political. Just like now -- Dems want to hold off on it because of the election coming up. When it was Obama, the Reps wanted to hold off on it.

Now all the Republicans want to do is rush it because all they have is the lame duck period to confirm Donald Trump's SCOTUS nominee.

 

[Josie]

Now all the Republicans want to do is rush it because all they have is the lame duck period to confirm Donald Trump's SCOTUS nominee.

They want to make sure a Trump appointee gets in. Just as the Dems want to hold off to see if Biden will win.

It sounds like you agree with the Republicans here. You think the Senate should go ahead with the hearings and vote ASAP.

 

[post]

I have no interest in who to blame. Playing that game you basically go back to the dawn of time. It's a boring and tedious process I have no interest in engaging in.

What I'm looking at are the problems of what we have now and how to fix them. And the problems of now are an out-of-control pandemic, a climate crisis, a disaster of a healthcare system and a voting rights system that is unfairly advantaged toward a specific demographic and geographic minority. If Democrats have the institutional powers to fix these things then they will.

Before the 2014 mid-term elections, the top ten percent had been "made whole", on balance via federal bailouts that had, for example, made Goldman Sachs an instant national bank on a Saturday night, lavished rewards on certain AIG employees, etc., etc., but the dems "went out" just before that election, without revising the minimum wage, unvisited in 7-1/2 years. As of now, 13-1/2 years. Meanwhile, Obama, concerned about his legacy and the impending 2014 elections, lunched with RBG to share his concerns over the likelihood those were the waning days of the segment of his final term in which he still could likely appoint a younger justice philisophically compatible with both of them.

Foreclosing on a 90-Year-Old Woman over 27 Cents and ...
www.vanityfair.com › news › 2016/12 › foreclosing-o...

Dec 1, 2016 - ... Other Heartwarming Tales from Steven Mnuchin's Days at OneWest ... than 36,000 foreclosures during Mnuchin's reign,” earning the bank a ...

The voters of the U.S. are largely to blame for their present predicaments, but they've certainly been targeted by huge investments that have reaped huge returns. Ask Hillary about the vast right wing conspiracy she once risked complaining about, back when it was still predominately secular. Its no accident GOP is still dominating state legislatures since the Koch bros. arranged that, or that Toensing and DiGenova are immeresed in at least their fourth major partisan disinfo campaign, starting with Lewinsky, or that Ken Starr participated in the farce of a senate impeachment trial.
It is about educating the electorate instead of investing in propagandizing a scape goating exploitation of and into them. Where were Gates, Bezos, or Bloomberg, or the wealthiest, allegedly progressive U.S. political donors, all these years? I'm a pessimist because I have a decent ability to not forgive or forget.

An investment, especially since the Iraq war began, in the theme, "How do you know what you know"? sure could not have hurt. It is disturbingly rare for posters participating here, even regulars, to post links to influential primary sources supporting key points in their posts.
The lack of concern here, which I may be confusing with acceptance, of the crisis level of wealth concentration resulting in what amounts to near slave wages for scores of millions of fellow residents who then are also scape goated as "lazy freeloaders" is the epitome of ugly American. Thank you, Mitt, et al!

 

[John_Galt]

not only should SCOTUS have term limits but it should also require a supermajority for the senate to nominate them. The “nuclear option” was a mistake when the Democrats used it and a mistake when the republicans extended it to SCOTUS. a super majority is they only way to force the other side to pick moderate justices! And neither party will always be in power. Huge mistake.

 

[John_Galt]

I don't know, but maybe a mandatory retirement age. 85. 90. Or maybe not.

The only problem with that, is that they will just start Nominating younger and younger justices..... so it doesn’t help the problem.

 

[post]

not only should SCOTUS have term limits but it should also require a supermajority for the senate to nominate them. The “nuclear option” was a mistake when the Democrats used it and a mistake when the republicans extended it to SCOTUS. a super majority is they only way to force the other side to pick moderate justices! And neither party will always be in power. Huge mistake.

A purpose of the SCOTUS is to balance "the tyranny of the majority", or in recent times, of extreme wealth concentration. Historically, there has been no alternative for relief for oppressed minorities, or women. Amending the Constitution has ceased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Warren_and_Burger
...
The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of.. civil liberties. It held that segregation in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and (Green v. County School Bd..) and that legislative districts must be roughly equal in population (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police..the Court limited defamation suits by public figures ..and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.

The Burger Court (1969–1986) marked a conservative shift...

McConnell said the agenda was to make Obama a one term POTUS. Reid was forced to do what he did , but waited too long, and out of wistful fantasy, the old check on hyper partisanship resulting in reciprocity, common courtesy, was completely stamped out by McConnell and his caucus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies#Effects_of_vacancies

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-blocks-obama-laughs_n_5df32430e4b0deb78b517322
Dec. 13, 2019

.. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) .. bragged about blocking President Barack Obama’s attempt to fill federal judicial vacancies for two years. he laughed about it as he discussed the Republican effort to stack the courts with conservative judges under President Donald Trump.
“I was shocked that former President Obama left so many vacancies and didn’t try to fill those positions,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said..

Obama didn’t leave those vacancies so much as he was blocked from filling them by a GOP-controlled Senate led by McConnell ― something the majority leader was quick to point out.

Some history :
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/

The hypocrisy, considering McConnell's total disregard in reaction to nearly doubling the rate of debt increase during what Trump and party touted as the "greatest economy in history" is truly Trumpian!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/
The Fact Checker Jan. 11, 2017

2010 United States foreclosure crisis - Wikipedia

The 2010 U.S. foreclosure crisis, sometimes referred to as Foreclosure-gate or Foreclosuregate, refers to a widespread epidemic of improper ...

... McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 ....

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public...
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt...

Trump inherited a national debt growing @ $56 billion per month

Trump and Mitch during the 29 months between 10/01/17 and 02/26/20 increased that debt expansion to $109 billion monthly,

 

[John_Galt]

A purpose of the SCOTUS is to balance "the tyranny of the majority", or in recent times, of extreme wealth concentration. Historically, there has been no alternative for relief for oppressed minorities, or women. Amending the Constitution has ceased.



McConnell said the agenda was to make Obama a one term POTUS. Reid was forced to do what he did , but waited too long, and out of wistful fantasy, the old check on hyper partisanship resulting in reciprocity, common courtesy, was completely stamped out by McConnell and his caucus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies#Effects_of_vacancies



Some history :
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/

The hypocrisy, considering McConnell's total disregard in reaction to nearly doubling the rate of debt increase during what Trump and party touted as the "greatest economy in history" is truly Trumpian!



Trump inherited a national debt growing @ $56 billion per month

Trump and Mitch during the 29 months between 10/01/17 and 02/26/20 increased that debt expansion to $109 billion monthly,

I strongly dislike agree with that... the purpose of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution and rule accordingly when a case is brought before them!! It’s not to legislate from the bench or say what “they think” the constitution should say.
and as far as judge nominees go, if you want a judge or justice approved... then nominate a moderate one and they will be voted on and approved. And I mean that for the right and then left. This didn’t used to be a partisan issue. look at history and nominees used to be passed with over welcoming support from both sides. But now that we use the judicial system to try and “super legislate” things from the bench. We are forced to only nominate people that are partisan. That’s why the democrats blew up the supermajority and why the republicans extended it to scotus. Women’s right to vote and the civil rights act were both amendments to the constitution.... that had nothing to do with scotus

 

[Luther]

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.

Why or why not?

Because our FOUNDERS wanted it that way

Remember those guys?

 

[The AntiDonald]

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.

No. Impossible to know who would be in the WH and who would be appointed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

No, virtually no developed country that I’m aware of has a soley majority rule system for selecting head of state. Except for France. In fact many countries (Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, have no democratic systems at all for head of state)

 

[Atreus21]

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........

I'm a conservative desperately hoping for a conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

But part of the reason the SCOTUS fights are so bitter and nasty is because the SCOTUS has become too powerful. Roe v. Wade made that very clear. I'm in favor of anything that will pare back their inordinate power, including term limits or reducing the number of justices to 8. Whatever the founders intended the SCOTUS to be, I can't imagine it was this.

 

[SMTA]

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...

Term, no.
Age, yes. 75

 

[Rexedgar]

I'm a conservative desperately hoping for a conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

But part of the reason the SCOTUS fights are so bitter and nasty is because the SCOTUS has become too powerful. Roe v. Wade made that very clear. I'm in favor of anything that will pare back their inordinate power, including term limits or reducing the number of justices to 8. Whatever the founders intended the SCOTUS to be, I can't imagine it was this.

You misspelled “political,” imo.

 

[Josie]

Term, no.
Age, yes. 75

Why 75?