Big Majority Want Limits for Supreme Court Justices

[applegrove]

Big Majority Want Limits for Supreme Court Justices

May 18, 2022 at 2:13 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 14 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2022/05/18/big-majority-back-limits-for-supreme-court-justices/

"SNIP.......

A new Quinnipiac poll finds Americans support limiting the number of years a Supreme Court Justice can serve on the Supreme Court, 69% to 27%.

In addition, a majority of Americans say the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics, 63% to 32%.

.......SNIP"

[ColinC]

1. We don't need to expand the supreme court. Just instate term limits!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[PoliticAverse]

2. What "goose" with term limits are you referring to? n/t

[ColinC]

3. Presidents.

Repugs are totally okay with Obama having term limits. Yet they are against them for their supreme court justices 🤔

[PoliticAverse]

5. The Presidential term limit required a Constitutional amendment, would a Supreme Court justice..

term limit require one? - Guess who would get to decide that.

[ColinC]

10. Ugh. I take it back. Expanding the court is precedented through legislation and likely more doable.

[wnylib]

18. Term limit for president was established

in 1951 by the 22nd amendment to the constitution, long before Obama was born.

[sdfernando]

4. Its actually easier to expand the court then set term limits

Term limits for Supreme Court Justices would require an amendment to the Constitution. Expanding the court is just a vote by Congress.

[PoliticAverse]

6. But a much lower percentage of the public seems to support that...

I don't believe even 50 Democratic Senators currently do.

[sdfernando]

7. and a Constitutional Amendment would take years, decades.

which by the way must also be voted on and approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress and then 3/4 off the States.

Just look at the Equal Rights Amendment which was 1st approved by Congress in 1972....its still not approved.

[ColinC]

11. I imagine there are more than enough to get the ball rolling.

But currently not enough to pass the legislation. If Dems gain enough seats next year, I imagine it could be a priority.

[Wonder Why]

16. And then?

The next congress that has a majority by the other party adds even more and thus has a majority. Both sides go back and forth until we need a football stadium to hold all the members of the Supreme Court!

[llashram]

23. we have to try

to assure a non politically partial court. D. trump/McConnell/GOPR has shown us just how easy our democracy can be threatened by racist fascist pigs.

[sdfernando]

24. There are 11 circuit courts so expanding to 11 seems quite logical

Congress could pass legislation limiting the Supreme Court to the number of Circuit Courts. Then propose a constitutional amendment codifying it permanently. Still would take time to get the amendment passed but expanding the court to 11 Justices would be faster and very logical.

[Wonder Why]

28. Does it?

"Congress could pass legislation limiting the Supreme Court to the number of Circuit Courts."

Next congress could change that back.

"Then propose a constitutional amendment codifying it permanently." As many people in this thread have pointed out: "Fat chance". And lets even go along with the impossible and assume that this does become part of the constitution. Doesn't mean the same problem can't happen with 11 Justices as has happened with 9. What does one do then? Try and undo the constitutional amendment or change it to 13?

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't yet been able to make billionaires pay their fair share, much less pass such a law and then try to get congress to pass the constitutional amendment and get it passed by 3/4 of the states.

[sdfernando]

30. well then I challeng you to offer a solution

So far you haven't and basically bashed democrats (against the TOS). You're a member since the 18th of this month and responded to a total of 5 posts (2 of them mine).

Instead of bashing offer solutions. Absent that I don't think you will be here long.

[Hav]

31. The only realistic solution seems to be the one that already exists: Voting

Expanding the court isn't realistic and it's a very myopic, short term approach. As already stated, it invites Repubs to add even more extreme repub justices once they are in power.

[Wonder Why]

33. I have not bashed anybody.

I have just disagreed with your posts. Isn't that what democracy is all about? I fully support the Democrats. I just don't think that some suggestions are practical or even possible. Sometimes one has to accept that making changes could result in them backfiring on us. If that seems offensive to you, I don't mean it to be.

As to offering better solutions, if I had one, I would propose it. At this point, I see none that I would consider both possible and workable in the long term even if you do so. I only see the danger with offering "solutions" that may make things worse or just not work.

However, you can propose what solutions you think best and you have the right to do so. I say I hope they work but I doubt they will so I am trying to help by pointing out the downside and the danger. I don't wish your failure. I just wish you would consider what could happen if you succeed.

"Absent that I don't think you will be here long." sounds like a threat. I have never threatened you so why that comment? And remember, at some point in your life, you had only posted 5 times.

This is my third reply to you. If I get banned for such replies, it probably means that the site is not open to disagreements and probably then is not my cup of tea. That other party seems to be the ones intolerant of free, open and honest discussion. I wouldn't want my party to be the same.

[SoonerPride]

8. Not a big enough majority to make this change to the Constitution.

Sadly this ain't ever happening.

[Irish_Dem]

9. The GOP is not interested in what the majority wants.

Democracy is not their goal.

[Demovictory9]

12. yeah... its so obvious now

[Karadeniz]

13. The numbers for how people think they'll vote is discouraging

[inthewind21]

14. Big Majority

wants winning powerball numbers. Why is Biden doing something?! How about, Big Majority needs civics lessons.

[Mysterian]

15. At the pace we're going, the USA will be destroyed before any term limits were reached

I want the president to add three liberal justices.

[Samrob]

17. 12 years max. nt

[LiberalFighter]

19. There is a way to indirectly impose term limits on Justices and judges.

Reduce their salary and put their pension in line with Congress. Pensions of congressional members are based on years of service and percent based on highest three years with a limit of 80%.

Justices and federal judges receive 100% of the salary they were receiving while active as their pension. They should not receive more than 80%. They could possibly reduce their pension further for each year after age 72 they don't retire.

Presidents currently only receive 54.8 percent of their salary when leaving office.

[FBaggins]

20. Nope

SECTION 1. 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.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Except when they retire they are not continuing in office.

[blue-wave]

22. Well, looks like I'm in the minority

I'm against terms limits for the SC. What we need is to codify that the party holding the White house when a vacancy occurs nominates the next justice, even if the White house changes parties during said vacancy. That way, the republicans would never be able to pull another delay tactic over nominations and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

[dawg]

25. This is my solution:

The President nominates a potential justice and the Senate confirms with at least 50 votes. If the Senate fails to hold a vote within a set time, the nominee is deemed confirmed by default.

If the Senate votes to reject the nominee, it has a set time to propose it's own nominee, who must be confirmed by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. If the Senate fails to nominate and confirm it's alternate nominee within a set time, the President's original nominee is deemed confirmed by default.

This way, the President would generally get his nominations through. The only exceptions would be in cases where the nominees were so extreme that the moderates of his or her own party were willing to reject them in favor of a consensus alternative.

[blue-wave]

32. I like it

[spanone]

26. It appears our current political system isn't interested in what the People support.

[Polybius]

27. Count me out

Term limits are not something that I support, not even for Presidents.

[Takket]

29. too bad 2/3rds of the country wanting something doesn't mean shit

but i agree.

The lifetime appointment is fundamentally flawed in the modern world. Life expectancy has gone up from the 1780s. So when someone had enough experience to justify being on SCOTUS, chances are they were only going to live another 15-20 years by that point, so letting them stay there until they died was not a big deal. ACB might be on SCOTUS for 40+ years. Founding fathers never would have allowed lifetime appointments if it meant stagnant counts for decades.