Some want to limit justices to 18 years on US Supreme Court

[webfact]

Some want to limit justices to 18 years on Supreme Court
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death a month before his 80th birthday and the potential impasse over replacing him is giving new impetus to an old idea: Limiting the service of Supreme Court justices.

Scalia had been on the court for nearly 30 years, longer than any of the current justices and all but 14 of the 112 men and women who have served on the court.

"I think 30 years on the court is too long for anyone — liberal or conservative. That is just too much power in one person's hands for too long a period," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal legal scholar and dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine.

The Constitution says federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," which means essentially as they long as they wish.

The most talked-about idea has support among both liberals and conservatives. A single 18-year-term would replace lifetime tenure. Going forward, presidents would appoint a justice every two years, ensuring both continuity on the court and two picks for each presidential term. On the right, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry advanced a similar idea during his 2012 Republican campaign for president.

The Supreme Court already had been a topic of conversation in the presidential race. Scalia's death has brought into stark relief how Supreme Court appointments can be a president's most lasting legacy.

Even with Scalia's death, there remain three justices who are at least 77 years old and have served more than 20 years. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 83rd birthday is March 15. Justice Anthony Kennedy turns 80 on July 23. Justice Stephen Breyer will be 78 on August 15.

Even with improved medical care and longer life expectancies, health crises on the court are as inevitable as they are in society at large, said historian David Garrow.

"One thing we can say in the present day is the fact that we have a court that is this elderly at the moment and there aren't any signs of decrepitude ... is like the Florida Gulf Coast dodging a hurricane," Garrow said.

Justice William Douglas' declining health provided the clearest example in recent decades of what can ensue when a debilitated justice remains on the bench. The 76-year-old Douglas suffered a stroke on December 31, 1974, but did not retire until the following November.

Douglas tried to participate in the court's work, but had trouble staying awake, even during public court sessions. Court arguments were interrupted when the justice, who used a wheelchair, had to leave the bench. Still, it took many months before Douglas agreed to retire.

He was not alone in staying on the court too long, Garrow said. Justices Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall and Lewis Powell all suffered significant declines in what Garrow called their mental energy and should have left the court earlier than they did, he said.

The last time the court had as many as three justices in their 80s was in 1990, with Justices William Brennan, Harry Blackmun and Marshall. Brennan retired that year, and the other two also left the bench over the next four years, along with Byron White, though he was a relatively youthful 76 when he retired.

Knowing that their picks may outlive them by decades, presidents tend to choose younger men and women for the job. President Ronald Reagan named the 50-year-old Scalia to the court in 1986. Douglas, the longest serving justice of them all, was appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt before the start of World War II and served until 1975. He took his seat at age 40.

Other than Ginsburg, who was 60 when she took her seat in 1993, no one older than 55 has joined the court since 1972.

"If you are 62 years old, no one is going to appoint you under the current rules," said University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack. Another point in favor of term limits, Pollack said, is that judges educated in the 1940s and 50s are making decisions about same-sex marriage and technology. "They're from a totally different time. That's not a wise institutional design," he said.

Life tenure also undercuts the importance of elections, George Washington University law professor and former Kennedy clerk Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Kerr pointed to President Jimmy Carter, who made no Supreme Court appointments in four years in the White House. Reagan made four in the following eight years.

Staggered appointments of Supreme Court justices would more closely align the composition of the court with the prevailing political majority, Kerr said. One hazard of such a system, though, is that a two-term president could name a majority of the court if a justice appointed by the previous president were to die or be forced to leave the court early.

Yet Scalia's clear and consistent articulation of a method of interpreting laws and the Constitution over many decades underscores the value of lifetime appointments, said Roy Englert, a Washington lawyer who has argued 20 cases at the high court.

"Scalia was a brilliant thought leader on the court and within the country up until the day he died, literally," Englert said.

Past efforts to drum up support for term limits have failed, mainly because most scholars believe the Constitution would have to be changed. It takes two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose an amendment, and 38 of the 50 states to ratify it.

Scalia himself said in recent years that one thing he wished the framers of the Constitution had done differently was to make the document easier to amend.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-19

[spiritrace]

This might be a good move for the U.S. Too much chance of like thinking judges under the current system.

[Jingthing]

It's a non starter.

[willyumiii]

Life time appointments to the court are a major flaw in the US government system.

This is why we have people who's values and opinions were formed in the 1950's making decisions about our lives now, in the 21st century.

We need judges who's views are inline with the majority of Americans, not the parents and grand parents of most Americans.

Couple this with the fact that mental capacity does diminish with old age and it is just foolish to keep Judges until they finally fall down dead in their 70s, 80s, or 90s!

I am not a young man. I am 62, and I have felt strongly about this since I was a young man.

[NeverSure]

I have to disagree with the article and some here. The Constitution is the backbone of the country and can be amended only as mentioned in the OP. To presume that different justices from different eras would be a good thing as they saw it differently is to completely misunderstand the process.

The Constitution is the glue that keeps America what it is and has been. It doesn't change with the whim of a couple of younger generation members. It changes when the country feels a need to amend it and thus the process. The process is necessarily difficult to assure that it isn't changed on a whim.

We get our rights and freedoms from that Constitution and it says what it says and what it's always said amendments excepted. The fact that who appoints who to that panel makes a big difference is an indictment of those who abuse the system.

If you can find enough people who are wiling to amend that document then go for it. That takes care of the "generational" differences without jeopardizing all that made America what it is, despite its flaws.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

The Constitution was written by people who were escaping repressive governments in Europe, and the King of England in particular. Almost immediately after the founders wrote and ratified the Constitution, they quickly wrote the first amendments called The Bill of Rights to assure the rights of the people over the government.

Read it. It's protection from the government!! Now "some people" want more and bigger government but just read it!!!

It must not be "amended" by the SC.

Cheers

[Pinot]

Life time appointments to the court are a major flaw in the US government system.

This is why we have people who's values and opinions were formed in the 1950's making decisions about our lives now, in the 21st century.

We need judges who's views are inline with the majority of Americans, not the parents and grand parents of most Americans.

Couple this with the fact that mental capacity does diminish with old age and it is just foolish to keep Judges until they finally fall down dead in their 70s, 80s, or 90s!

I am not a young man. I am 62, and I have felt strongly about this since I was a young man.

It's not going to happen. Age does affect performance but the chances of changing this are nil.

What were we talking about?

[Srikcir]

I have to disagree with the article and some here. The Constitution is the backbone of the country and can be amended only as mentioned in the OP. To presume that different justices from different eras would be a good thing as they saw it differently is to completely misunderstand the process.

The Constitution is the glue that keeps America what it is and has been. It doesn't change with the whim of a couple of younger generation members. It changes when the country feels a need to amend it and thus the process. The process is necessarily difficult to assure that it isn't changed on a whim.

We get our rights and freedoms from that Constitution and it says what it says and what it's always said amendments excepted. The fact that who appoints who to that panel makes a big difference is an indictment of those who abuse the system.

If you can find enough people who are wiling to amend that document then go for it. That takes care of the "generational" differences without jeopardizing all that made America what it is, despite its flaws.

Cheers.

The US Constitution was written with the intent to be ageless as a pure ideological guide, hence no term limits on the USSC who would interpret it. Its provisions are broadly written to accommodate broad societal changes over time, ie., women's sufferage. While it can be amended, the process was made difficult in order to assure a sincere and deliberate participatory engagement by Americans.

[HasipHasip5]

I agree wholeheartedly with term limits not only for the Supreme Court justices, but also for the House and Senate. I don't believe true change can happen without it. If the next President can accomplish these tasks, they will go down as one of the greatest in history.

[hawker9000]

It's a non starter.

It is. And should be. The fallback position that the Constitution should be "easier to amend" is equally untenable. It's been successfully amended 27 times to date!

[bark]

They should be vote in for only 4 - 5 years; then they should look at their voting record. If not good, they should be replaced.

Why do they need a life time members. What happens when they reach old age and start getting sick ?

[Rancid]

The Constitution was written by people who were escaping repressive governments in Europe, and the King of England in particular. Almost immediately after the founders wrote and ratified the Constitution, they quickly wrote the first amendments called The Bill of Rights to assure the rights of the people over the government.

Read it. It's protection from the government!! Now "some people" want more and bigger government but just read it!!!

It must not be "amended" by the SC.

Cheers

Would agree that the intentions of US founders were good, however would suggest the US Gov, Inc. has strayed a long way from there. As to justices, remember what they started out as...lawyers. Perhaps lawyers in the US as regarded with a lot of respect, many other countries however see them as ambulance chasers.

[Chicog]

I look at that headline and thought "that's a bit young".



On a serious note, this seems a rather sensible suggestion: Make the next Supreme Court Justice an Atheist.

The prejudice against atheists has real-world consequences. In December, 2014, the Times reported that seven states—Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—still have laws on their books that make atheists ineligible to run for public office. And anti-atheist prejudice is shaping our Presidential race, too DELETED

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

Edited February 19, 2016 by seedy
Rule 14

[stevenl]

They should be vote in for only 4 - 5 years; then they should look at their voting record. If not good, they should be replaced.

Why do they need a life time members. What happens when they reach old age and start getting sick ?

Agree, and Thai visa members get to decide if their voting record is acceptable.

[connda]

I'm thinking 10 year. As long the the Constitution has been trashed.....just saying.

[NovaBlue05]

I can't imagine any job where a lifetime appointment really makes sense

[Chicog]

Since life expectancy has approximately doubled in the last 150 years, I think it's perfectly reasonable to start considering term limits to make tenure nearer what they expected when they wrote it, no?

[NovaBlue05]

I bet Ginsberg has more bad days than good

[hawker9000]

I look at that headline and thought "that's a bit young".

On a serious note, this seems a rather sensible suggestion: Make the next Supreme Court Justice an Atheist.

The prejudice against atheists has real-world consequences. In December, 2014, the Times reported that seven statesArkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texasstill have laws on their books that make atheists ineligible to run for public office. And anti-atheist prejudice is shaping our Presidential race, too DELETED

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

The laws may still be on the books, but you & I both know they'd never stand up to a Constitutional challenge. So the point is utterly moot. OTOH, if a voter wants to cast his vote (or withhold it) based on religious belief, that's entirely his right.

[Chicog]

I look at that headline and thought "that's a bit young".

On a serious note, this seems a rather sensible suggestion: Make the next Supreme Court Justice an Atheist.

The prejudice against atheists has real-world consequences. In December, 2014, the Times reported that seven statesArkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texasstill have laws on their books that make atheists ineligible to run for public office. And anti-atheist prejudice is shaping our Presidential race, too DELETED

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

The laws may still be on the books, but you & I both know they'd never stand up to a Constitutional challenge. So the point is utterly moot. OTOH, if a voter wants to cast his vote (or withhold it) based on religious belief, that's entirely his right.

Any comment on the idea of putting an Atheist on the SCOTUS though?

[Chicog]

Interesting that, in the absence of Justice "Abortion Mills" Scalia, the women of SCOTUS ripped into Texas over their ridiculous anti-abortion laws that they are trying to dress up as "for medical safety reasons".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/03/in_oral_arguments_for_the_texas_abortion_case_the_three_female_justices.html