Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

This should stop the idea of packing the court. Now we need an age limit for all of them.

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. 

"It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years/ar-BB19oBG5?ocid=msedgntp

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thought unfortunately I believe it would require an amendment to the US constitution not a law. 
 

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/09/21/why-do-supreme-court-justices-have-lifetime-appointments/

Then again, changing the tenure of Supreme Court justices would require amending the Constitution, which is “no easy task,” Meltsner said.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nice thought unfortunately I believe it would require an amendment to the US constitution not a law. 

I don’t think so:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

This should stop the idea of packing the court. Now we need an age limit for all of them.

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. 

"It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric," said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years/ar-BB19oBG5?ocid=msedgntp

So it passes the House and McConnell kills it in the Senate.  McConnell said filling the seats in the courts will be his greatest legacy.  No way he'll ever let that one reach the floor.

Maybe some day America will wake up and smell the corruption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

So it passes the House and McConnell kills it in the Senate.  McConnell said filling the seats in the courts will be his greatest legacy.  No way he'll ever let that one reach the floor.

Maybe some day America will wake up and smell the corruption.

That’s a promise to the voters that if you flip the Senate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jules said:

So it passes the House and McConnell kills it in the Senate.  McConnell said filling the seats in the courts will be his greatest legacy.  No way he'll ever let that one reach the floor.

Maybe some day America will wake up and smell the corruption.

Actually, this bill is gaining some interest. We all see a need to fix the court, and packing it is not a solution. This bill keeps the Supreme Court at eighteen years and then the judge becomees 'senior' and rotates to a lower court. This way they keep their pay and their lifetime appointment albeit in a novel way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should change the required approval vote to 2/3 or even 3/4 .

Judges on the  Supreme Court should be folks all the Senators recognize as fine jurists. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a bunch of trusted old brilliant judges who look everything over and decide whether they think whatever is going on is constitutional,

They are supposed to be the opposite of partisan. 
 

Partisanship has no place in the process and is exactly opposite of what it should be. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I think they should change the required approval vote to 2/3 or even 3/4 .

Judges on the  Supreme Court should be folks all the Senators recognize as fine jurists. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a bunch of trusted old brilliant judges who look everything over and decide whether they think whatever is going on is constitutional,

They are supposed to be the opposite of partisan. 
 

Partisanship has no place in the process and is exactly opposite of what it should be. 

I agree. The Dems and the Republicans have both had a kick at this can, it's time to reset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifetime appointments are intended to insulate the justices from political influence and the procedure for appointment is set out in the constitution. I think Joker is correct that this can't be changed legislatively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog, it appears that the mid and long-term shift in the country is to Left and away from the GOP and even right-wing Dems. If this continues,, and there is no reason to think it won't you end up with a leftie SC within 20 years or so. Are you comfortable with this?

Canada's SC justices are picked by the PM but not politically-motivated.  The result is a court which has made any number of major decisions with the average Canadian not being able to identify any of the justices let alone their political affiliation. Justices retire at 75 or can resign earlier if they wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Dog, it appears that the mid and long-term shift in the country is to Left and away from the GOP and even right-wing Dems. If this continues,, and there is no reason to think it won't you end up with a leftie SC within 20 years or so. Are you comfortable with this?

 

No, I'm not comfortable with it which is why my commentary is what it is. Is that ok with you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Joker has never been correct in his life.

Find me some words in the constitution that say it cannot.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

But you're the lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

But you're the lawyer.

Go ahead and show me where they have life appointments

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to flow from article 1 - section 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

"Tenure:  The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." The term "good behaviour" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behaviour); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[5] George W. English,[6] and Samuel B. Kent,[7] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process. "

Further clarification:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_1/

Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior.1 This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.2 The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.3 While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.4

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_2/ALDE_00000685/

From https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-new-york-ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights-courts-c07e92e4f9891954c3e7d8dc7f0be2c2

"Appearing at a law school forum in 2008, she noted with relief that there was no retirement age for U.S. judges. “We hold our offices during good behavior,” Ginsburg said, citing language from the Constitution. “So all of my colleagues behave very well.” "

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Legislators are free to impose a limit unless the constitution prevents it. Please show me where it does that.

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Monkey said:

The problem with this idea is that it is far too rational. The folks in D.C. would never be mature enough to agree on it. 

They would,  but people with life long tenure are probably never gonna allow it to be taken away without an Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.12e65ddf045f18537a91e13bffdfef8a.png

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Also, an amendment to the big C would require buy in from quite a few legislatures besides the one in DC.

Yes, the Supreme Court agrees that "during good Behaviour' means a life term.  Again, folks with a failsafe job have a hell of a motivation to agree that it is a failsafe job.

  I would think that the framers would have written 'for life' if they meant the terms to not be limited to anything but the holder's life.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Framers meant by during good behavior is also covered in Federalist 78,

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp

Stolen elections matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the democRATS are in a position to do so, they should ram, jam, cram, and slam a bill through Congress that criminalizes wrongfully depriving any citizen of his/her right to vote. It should be a felony, any qualified immunity should be waived for it, and anyone convicted of it should lose their right to vote forever. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol ... the Dems simply cannot work within the US Constitution .. or the law... it’s much easier to legislate from the bench. The woman Rabbi eulogizing today would have had RBG turning over in her casket as she perverted RBG’s legacy with ignorant statements of her positions and how change is made with the law and within existing laws. 
When you can’t get your way with existing laws , change the laws to suit your political needs 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Stolen elections matter.

 the federalist papers do not.  they are mere advocacy.

1 hour ago, jzk said:

 

That is not the same as not mattering. 

OK class, does anybody remember what the names of the first two political parties in the USA were?

The Anti-Federalists and the .... umm.... this is is a toughie.... the FEDERALISTS

The Federalist Papers do matter, a little. But they are partisan essays from the advocates of a central authoritarian gov't (although oddly enough they are used in the opposite sense, much of the time, today). They are often represented as the Founding Fathers taking a longer and more detailed look at what was intended by the Constitution... which is bullshit. It's SOME (mainly one) of the Founding Father attempting to sway the course of the nation's politics.

They have the same force of law as Poor Richard's Almanac (also written by a Founding Father)

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If the democRATS are in a position to do so, they should ram, jam, cram, and slam a bill through Congress that criminalizes wrongfully depriving any citizen of his/her right to vote. It should be a felony, any qualified immunity should be waived for it, and anyone convicted of it should lose their right to vote forever. 

Get your ass to the poll and vote or get your ass to YOUR supervisor of elections office and do the paperwork for a absentee ballot ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

It appears to flow from article 1 - section 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

"Tenure:  The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." The term "good behaviour" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behaviour); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[5] George W. English,[6] and Samuel B. Kent,[7] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process. "

Further clarification:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_1/

Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior.1 This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.2 The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.3 While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.4

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_2/ALDE_00000685/

From https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-new-york-ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights-courts-c07e92e4f9891954c3e7d8dc7f0be2c2

"Appearing at a law school forum in 2008, she noted with relief that there was no retirement age for U.S. judges. “We hold our offices during good behavior,” Ginsburg said, citing language from the Constitution. “So all of my colleagues behave very well.” "

 

This is one of the problems with law - interpretation.  Everyone knows we have judges with biases that are political, religious, ideological, etc, etc.  We comfort ourselves when we accept the line, "but they leave their biases at the doors of the court."  Of course, that's bullshit intended to make us feel good.

The only way we can gain some comfort in the claim there's no bias in the courts is if the people who are appointed to the courts show little or no bias, throughout their legal careers, before being nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK class, does anybody remember what the names of the first two political parties in the USA were?

The Anti-Federalists and the .... umm.... this is is a toughie.... the FEDERALISTS

The Federalist Papers do matter, a little. But they are partisan essays from the advocates of a central authoritarian gov't (although oddly enough they are used in the opposite sense, much of the time, today). They are often represented as the Founding Fathers taking a longer and more detailed look at what was intended by the Constitution... which is bullshit. It's SOME (mainly one) of the Founding Father attempting to sway the course of the nation's politics.

They have the same force of law as Poor Richard's Almanac (also written by a Founding Father)

- DSK

Again, that is not the same as not mattering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK class, does anybody remember what the names of the first two political parties in the USA were?

The Anti-Federalists and the .... umm.... this is is a toughie.... the FEDERALISTS

The Federalist Papers do matter, a little. But they are partisan essays from the advocates of a central authoritarian gov't (although oddly enough they are used in the opposite sense, much of the time, today). They are often represented as the Founding Fathers taking a longer and more detailed look at what was intended by the Constitution... which is bullshit. It's SOME (mainly one) of the Founding Father attempting to sway the course of the nation's politics.

They have the same force of law as Poor Richard's Almanac (also written by a Founding Father)

 

Again, that is not the same as not mattering.

 

We are aware that you cannot actually read, it's OK. Some of us even have some sympathy for you.

But please up your game at pretending. Try to spot similar letter patterns.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

This is one of the problems with law - interpretation.  Everyone knows we have judges with biases that are political, religious, ideological, etc, etc.  We comfort ourselves when we accept the line, "but they leave their biases at the doors of the court."  Of course, that's bullshit intended to make us feel good.

The only way we can gain some comfort in the claim there's no bias in the courts is if the people who are aappointed to the courts show little or no bias, throughout their legal careers, before being nominated.

True.  That's also why there is nine of them.  I also suspect that they DO influence each other.

Relative to ideology, I sincerely doubt that Roberts has suddenly gone all liberal for example - what he HAS done is routinely said 'Don't make us decide this shit" - YOU are the elected officials.

I actually do have a lot of faith in the Supreme court.   I think they're very smart people.  I wish they came from broader backgrounds and weren't all out of the Harvard/Yale tradition but that's my own personal bias against elitism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

True.  That's also why there is nine of them.  I also suspect that they DO influence each other.

No. There’s nine of them because in 1869 there were 9 circuit courts and Congress wanted one Supreme Court justice per circuit court (Source: comments from congress in 1869). Congress felt 6 justices enough for a quorum. post Civil War there was a dramatic increase in cases and a broad desire to return to the rule of law & order. They also introduced a pension for justices because several of them were physically incapable, but stuck around for the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges + Critters are different, Mister Minister. Justices are nominated+confirmed, ideally chosen for their independence. On the other hand, you can't even get into the House without first winning an election. We should get rid of the ability of governors to appoint to fill vacancies. It was something the 17th stupidly left out. Of course, RWNJs no like the 17th at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

This opinion just published on The Hill is exactly what I told my wife when RBG died.  It's Trump's only chance besides an outright coup.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/518187-a-game-theorists-advice-to-president-trump-on-filling-the-supreme-court

 

Can you honestly, with a straight face, say that if a Dem was in office and the D's held the Senate they would be doing anything different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Can you honestly, with a straight face, say that if a Dem was in office and the D's held the Senate they would be doing anything different?

They wouldn't have held the vote back 4 years ago, so wouldn't have the stink of hypocrisy dripping off them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Can you honestly, with a straight face, say that if a Dem was in office and the D's held the Senate they would be doing anything different?

I'm not sure. Let's find out in 8 years.  The article has nothing to do with that. Did you read it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Bullshit

 

nice imagining a false equivalence.

Reality is, the Dems are more like a party of cats. Herding them together in 45 days? Not possible.  The Republican Zombies "Yeah boss, which way do we march today!"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They would,  but people with life long tenure are probably never gonna allow it to be taken away without an Amendment.

You could always grandfather the existing SC judges, and impose the 18 year limit for all appointed ones going forward.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Actually, this bill is gaining some interest. We all see a need to fix the court, and packing it is not a solution. This bill keeps the Supreme Court at eighteen years and then the judge becomees 'senior' and rotates to a lower court. This way they keep their pay and their lifetime appointment albeit in a novel way.

So, it will take a constitutional amendment since the constitution does not place term limits on the SCOTUS as it does for the house, senate and presidency.  It took a constitutional amendment (27th) to put term limits on the POTUS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

If you are referring to the 2 term limit, it was the 22nd. The 27th is compensation of Congresscritters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

If you are referring to the 2 term limit, it was the 22nd. The 27th is compensation of Congresscritters.

Oops, that's correct.  It was the 22nd amendment. 

 

1 hour ago, Nice! said:

You could always grandfather the existing SC judges, and impose the 18 year limit for all appointed ones going forward.

Wouldn't the SC justices in office get to determine the constitutionality if it was passed as a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Good luck with that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Oops, that's correct.  It was the 22nd amendment. 

 

Wouldn't the SC justices in office get to determine the constitutionality if it was passed as a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Good luck with that.

 

I didn’t say law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

In essence they are not being term limited. Their Supreme Court appointment ends at 18 years. They then rotate to a senior position within the court system for the rest of their lives.https://khanna.house.gov/sites/khanna.house.gov/files/KHANNA_070_xml.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

In essence they are not being term limited. Their Supreme Court appointment ends at 18 years. They then rotate to a senior position within the court system for the rest of their lives.https://khanna.house.gov/sites/khanna.house.gov/files/KHANNA_070_xml.pdf

Nice technicality. I like it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. Reducing the filibuster margin in the Senate from 60 to 50 was a bad idea, in my view.  Dem majority got short-sighted and ended up with something  they hate right now.

If terms are shortened, how long will it take for the Federal Circuit courts to have the same fate?  And then inevitably the District Judges as well?

In states with elected judges (Louisiana), we end up with state court judges many of whom are, duh, political. You try a case before one and someone who's close to your opponent is on that judge's campaign committee.  He/she may even be head of that committee. If you represent an out of state client, there's a realistic chance of home-cooking., or at least the appearance of same.   US District Court judges are  not under that pressure to raise money for that next election,. Limiting terms to ten, sixteen, eighteen years or whatever,  is going to increase pressure on that judge to think about what's next after that term expires,  

Anyway, be careful what you wish for...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nolatom said:

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. Reducing the filibuster margin in the Senate from 60 to 50 was a bad idea, in my view.  Dem majority got short-sighted and ended up with something  they hate right now.

If terms are shortened, how long will it take for the Federal Circuit courts to have the same fate?  And then inevitably the District Judges as well?

In states with elected judges (Louisiana), we end up with state court judges many of whom are, duh, political. You try a case before one and someone who's close to your opponent is on that judge's campaign committee.  He/she may even be head of that committee. If you represent an out of state client, there's a realistic chance of home-cooking., or at least the appearance of same.   US District Court judges are  not under that pressure to raise money for that next election,. Limiting terms to ten, sixteen, eighteen years or whatever,  is going to increase pressure on that judge to think about what's next after that term expires,  

Anyway, be careful what you wish for...

I agree

The only way forward is to be the good guys.

If the Democratic Party leaders want to play hardball, the thing to do is -if- they win both House and Senate, to immediately have a far-reaching and fast-paced program to remove every single Trump appointed judge, all of them including Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and whomever he puts on now (if it works).

The judiciary is the most independent and potentially powerful branch of government, affecting national and local policy. If you have the brownie points, this would be a winner to expend them on. Totally Constitutional, will benefit -all- Americans in both the short and long run.

That, and actually improving ObamaCare (assuming Biden is not going to sign M4A).

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nolatom said:

In states with elected judges (Louisiana), we end up with state court judges many of whom are, duh, political. You try a case before one and someone who's close to your opponent is on that judge's campaign committee. 

Bush v Gore, you think that wasn’t political? The Supreme Court has been political longer than you’ve been alive (note: there was a judiciary act of 1869 because congress blamed the civil war on dredscott and didn’t want a repeat)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bush v Gore, you think that wasn’t political? The Supreme Court has been political longer than you’ve been alive (note: there was a judiciary act of 1869 because congress blamed the civil war on dredscott and didn’t want a repeat)

Yeah, but they don't have their hands out for money for the next election.  Big difference, especally down at the trial level.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better idea is expanding to 13 judges - there are 94 federal district courts in the US - increasing SCOTUS would allow faster review of cases coming to them, better research and reviews.

The country has gotten bigger, time to adapt.  If judges are not up to the job then resign or impeach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Better idea is expanding to 13 judges - there are 94 federal district courts in the US - increasing SCOTUS would allow faster review of cases coming to them, better research and reviews.

The country has gotten bigger, time to adapt.  If judges are not up to the job then resign or impeach. 

Whatever happened to defenestration?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Saorsa said:

 

Wouldn't the SC justices in office get to determine the constitutionality if it was passed as a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Good luck with that.

 

Agreed.  And, your last comment is what I say about the possibility of getting Congresscritters to vote for Congressional term limits.

Back in 1994, Bob Ehrlich was State Delegate and running for the Congressional seat about to be vacated with Helen Delich Bentley's announced retirement.  I knew him (and his wife) through membership at a gym and her sister being our neighbor.  My Dad was Staff Director for the House Appropriation Committee at the time and Ehrlich got wind of it.  All of a sudden, he was my buddy, hoping to make some new friends with powerful people.  Anyway, he ran with a major point being term limits.  Once elected, I asked him when he was going to introduce a bill on term limits.  He muttered something about "well, we have to tread carefully, here" and slunk away.

No freaking way they will do anything to jeopardize their gravy train.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

In essence they are not being term limited. Their Supreme Court appointment ends at 18 years. They then rotate to a senior position within the court system for the rest of their lives.https://khanna.house.gov/sites/khanna.house.gov/files/KHANNA_070_xml.pdf

Pointless drivel.

The constitution only establishes one court and the terms of office for that court.  Congress gets to establish lower courts but the Sup