• 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 SCOTUS have term limits?

Should SCOTUS have term limits?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe/Other/I don't know/Something else


Results are only viewable after voting.

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,295
Reaction score
31,720
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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...

iu
 
Last edited:
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 don't think they should, although they should be "encouraged" to retire when they are deathly sick, and/or unsound of mind and body.

They can also still be "impeached" for "bad behavior."

But I prefer "stability" in the SCOTUS to balance the instability of the House, and on occasion even the Presidency.
 
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...

iu

So......what's your answer to THIS question?
 
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 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 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.
 
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.
 
My preference would be a mandatory retirement age. If not that then I would not object to term limits. Maybe term of 12 years.
 
Should they? Yes.

Will getting there be difficult, amplified by which every party pushes for it, and made worse by why? Abso-****ing-lutely.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
True, I hadn't thought of that.

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 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.

"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.
 
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.
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.

The subtext of this effort is to increase turnover. I’m not so sure this is the best way to go.
 
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........
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.

For the SC justices I don't think we have to worry about a safety issue. Probably wouldn't have to worry about commercial pilots either if there were 9 pilots flying the plane. Although that could be chaotic.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Does this take into account Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy also being impacted by term limits?

Not at all. I'm just highlighting that term limits could/would impact decisions on many key cases across the spectrum.
 
"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.
 
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.

Expanding the court still gives Republicans the ability to have a majority. Why wouldn't it?
 
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.
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 right
 
Not at all. I'm just highlighting that term limits could/would impact decisions on many key cases across the spectrum.


Well lets take a look at the justices currently on the bench and when they would have termed out..

Justice Thomas... sworn in as justice in 1991... would have termed out in 2009... Obama would have nominated his replacement.
Justice Breyer... sworn in as justice in 1994.... would have termed out in 2012... Obama would have nominated his replacement.
Justice Scalia... sworn in as justice in 1986... would have termed out in 2004... GW Bush would have nominated his replacement.

Justice Kennedy (the seat now held by Kavanaugh)... sworn in as a justice in 1987... would have termed out in 2005... Gw Bush would have nominated his replacement..
Justice Ginsberg... sworn in as a justice in 1993... would have termed out in 2011... Obama would have nominated her replacement.
 
Expanding the court still gives Republicans the ability to have a majority. Why wouldn't it?
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.

After awhile we'll have 25 justices on the SCOTUS, then 49 and so on. Each side will do what it can. Whether it is right or wrong, each will do whatever it can to gain a political advantage.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom