Wide Majorities Losing Faith In John Roberts' Supreme Court, Want Term Limits

[marmar]

An overwhelming majority of voters would support sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court, as trust and confidence in the institution has eroded in recent years, according to a new survey by the Democratic-aligned firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Wide majorities disagree with the recent 5-4 party-line rulings that have upended a century of campaign finance law and tilted the rules in favor of the extremely wealthy and major corporations. The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less.

By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines. John Roberts swore before Congress during his confirmation hearings that he had great respect for precedent. But once confirmed as chief justice, he embarked on a remarkable run of conservative judicial activism that has favored the wealthy while undermining affirmative action and protection for voting rights.

Overall approval of the Supreme Court has been falling since its 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, according to Gallup. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/supreme-court-poll_n_5279535.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

[AScott]

1. So amend the Constitution, then.

Good luck with that.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Constitution doesn’t even mention life tenure

Professor Carrington has argued that such a measure would not require a constitutional amendment as the "Constitution doesn’t even mention life tenure; it merely requires that justices serve during ‘good behaviour’ ”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court

[yurbud]

17. so it could be done with just a law? The problem is, politicians would vote based on short term

advantage.

[ColesCountyDem]

34. While it doesn't use the exact phrase, it certainly implies it.

Article III, Section 1. of the Constitution says, in its pertinent part, "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour....". Logically, if one's behavior remains good, one's tenure remains inviolable.

[Progressive dog]

66. So the Professor wants to oveturn

200 years of precedent and exactly zero legal challenges, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say life tenure.
It would be particularly tough to change this precedent, because the Supreme Court gets to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

[Reter]

69. You're right but...

The Supreme Court would just vote to strike it down anyway, probably 9-0.

[TBF]

7. It's been amended before.

And while we're at it I think it may be time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Watching as repug heads explode ---->

[rhett o rick]

52. I take it that you know little of the Constitution. The SCOTUS was NOT given the power

they now exercise (judicial review) by the Constitution. But stick around. It'll be fun.

[appleannie1]

2. Today's SC is a paid off joke.

[myrna minx]

3. The Roberts Supreme Court is a farce. These conservatives have made a mockery

of this "coequal" branch of government.

[blkmusclmachine]

45. I wondered why the SCOTUS remodeled recently, disallowing public access to the Court. Now I think we

know what they had in mind: a total rewriting of the Nation's laws.

[Octafish]

5. Back in the day, people didn't live as long.

Today, all manner of things are in the employ of the wealthy to prolong life expectancy.



Beep. Beep. Beep. Benghazi. Beep. Beep. Beep...

[Jefferson23]

27. LOL

[nikto]

50. Captain Pike...Is that you?

[ladjf]

6. Our people aren't smart enough to push for shorter SC terms. nt

[mindwalker_i]

8. I get the feeling that the courts in general are a joke

"Affluenza?" FISA? There's been a serious change in, apparently, what law is. Law applies to the gal from Occupy but not to the cop who sexually assaulted her. Law applies to the dude with an ounce of pot, but not to the bankers or wall street people. Law is used to put people in for-profit prison, so that those government contracts - that we pay for - are a good business deal.

Then there's the Supreme Court.

Corporations are people with VERY loud voices. It's becoming more and more legal to shove a cross down someone's throat. Yeah, I think we all know the recent cases that have seriously eroded people's confidence that the case gives a flying fuck about what's right or wrong, let alone what follows the meaning of the laws that have been written. And that makes it very difficult to believe that's following the law is the right or moral thing to do.

[Live and Learn]

57. +1000 nt

[AnneD]

70. "The courts in general are a joke"....

Congress has by their own undoing, rendered themselves useless and worthless. The Supreme Court, by their recent rulings regarding campaign financing, and going back to their ruling on the presidential election, have totally lost the respect of the American people. The continued disrespecting and challenging of the President of the United States has erodes his authority.

In other words, all three branches of government at this time have failed the stress test and no longer have the people's trust. This is creating a power vacuum. The one thing I know is that Nature abhors a vacuum and the more and longer thing continue to suck in this country, the closer we are getting an upheaval.

There needs to be reform and reform now before we have out right street violence.

[stuartsdesk1]

9. Justices Should Retire When They Are Declared "Brain Dead"

Last edited Wed May 7, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it legal for dead people to vote in elections? No, it isn't !

So, why is it legal for brain dead justices to vote in the Supreme Court?

Instead of pushing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits
on the Supreme Court justices, why not require them to periodically pass a
simple test of cognitive ability? e.g. similar to those tests which are administered to people
applying for long term care insurance (in order to guard against early onset of Alzheimer's or
general senility).

In the latter case, if you fail, you are not eligible for insurance, or, maybe you
are eligible for insurance, but at a higher premium rate.

In the former case of the SCOTUS justices, if / when they fail. they would win a free long
term care insurance policy - under the condition that they vacate their position on the bench.

For a more humorous take on how SCOTUS functions and particularly Justice Scalia please see

htpp://www.stuartsdesk.com/Tea_Party_Tales.html

[Javaman]

10. A few years ago I posted an opinion on just this...

I took all the supreme court justices terms over time, eliminated the extremes on both ends and came up with roughly a 17 year average.

I rounded it down to 15 years. It should never be an even number so it never coincides with an election year.

that should be the term limit.

it's not like we don't know, in this day in age, when a supreme will retire.

it would begin this way, starting from when they were sworn in, they supremes would have a 15 year term limit.

that means that Roberts, who was sworn in in 2005, would have 6 more years on the bench.

And those who already have served 15+ years, such as scalia, kennedy, thomas, ginsberg and breyer, would serve 1 to 2 additional years (to be determined) and they would then be retired in the order by which who served the longest. so it would be scalia would go in two years, then kennedy, thomas etc...

yes, there is always the possibility of "stacking the court" but we have that going on now so, there would be effectively no difference.

I have always been in the firm belief that we must have term limits if we are to evolve as a democracy. This goes for members of congress as well.

It prevents the entrenched power of various politicians, would weaken the lobbying sector and give the people direct participation in our elections. If you already know who will win based upon some ones legacy a politician in a certain district or state is basically unbeatable, then what's the point of voting?

Votes would matter, money would be less of an issue in politics, and politicians would actually listen to us then the corporations.

[Treant]

18. Every 60 years

a 15 year term and 4 year election year will coincide.

There's no way to get them not to coincide occasionally without using some really whacky numbers. Elections every 7 years and term limits of 17 years would be the best reasonable ones.

Even so, I don't consider a blue moon election/SC Justice every 60 years to be much of an issue.

[hughee99]

22. Just have one retire every 2 years, in odd numberd years.

No president would get to appoint more than 4 (a 2 term president would get 4 nominations) given normal retirement circumstances. If you keep the number at 9, a justice get's 18 years before retirement.

[harrose]

32. You fail to take into account such things as

voluntary retirements or deaths.

[hughee99]

33. As I said, under "normal circumstances".

Although if you're only appointing them for a maximum of 18 years, and the age of appointments tends to trend younger lately, you may see fewer retirements and deaths.

If someone does happen to leave the bench in the two year interim, you can always skip the voluntary retirement in that odd year, although if you have 2 leave in less than a two year span it could create an issue.

In any case, I'm not submitting this as a bill to congress, so yeah, there's some details still to work out.

[whopis01]

60. Sure there is

Just use a multiple of 4 but start on a non-election year. Like instead of your suggestion of 17 just use 16 but start on an odd numbered year. That would guarantee that no regular SC nomination would ever fall in a regular election year.

[FailureToCommunicate]

11. I dunno...I kinda still like their cool work clothes...

[Blue Idaho]

15. "Activist Judges"

More like paid employees of Koch Industries...

[blkmusclmachine]

46. You betcha!

[mdbl]

61. Great graphic that says it all!

Not a lot of room left on those right winger's robes.

[oldandhappy]

12. I support term limits

for all public officials including the supremes. And, heretic that I am, smile, I think no one should run for higher office i.e. House or Senate or Pres unless they have worked and supported themselves outside the gov for ten years.

[Demeter]

13. Term Limits Would NOT Solve This Problem

What we need is some form of public impeachment, where the People throw the bums out.

[grahamhgreen]

63. Congress has the power to regulate SCOTUS as they see fit.

[Demeter]

67. Congress can't be bothered

They have failed in their duty, as well. And in the fullness of time, they will get their House and Senate cleaned. Because they are subject to regular recall.

[KansDem]

14. They made their's

Now let them wander off to enjoy their handsome pensions and let someone else assume the role and responsibility.

O’Connor Regrets Bush v. Gore



Fuck you, America!!

Wrong finger, "Your Honor."

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. She's still the consumate lawyer with..

"Maybe the court should have..."

"And probably the Supreme Court....."

Sorry, she can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. IMO she's worse than Scalia who is so off in wingnut la la land that he actually believes in his own bigotry, but she was more intelligent and must have known exactly what she was doing and who it would favour at the time and how undemocratic the decision was. The reasons for which I can only speculate...perhaps not to be ostracized by the wealthy class she socialized with? Who knows.

[blkmusclmachine]

47. Yeah, O'Connor's words ring hollow, devoid of honesty.

[Blue_Tires]

16. I worry that the USSC would become even MORE politicized

with term limits...

I'd much, much rather see term limits implemented in congress first -- At least something like two consecutive terms max in the senate, four consecutive in the house, and then that person needs to sit out the next term before running again...

[DirkGently]

19. They're certainly making a case for more turnover.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas seem bent on re-shaping America to make sure the influence of wealth is elevated to some kind of civil right.

Must've missed that provision of the Constitution.

Every time I see a photo of Roberts, he actually looks like he's smirking. At all of us.

Scalia has become a caricature of a hateful old man, and he's apparently in such a rush to lash out that he can't even remember his own rulings.

Alito likes to scowl at the President and shake his head.

Thomas is a jurisprudential zero with weirdo Tea Party leanings.

If we can't find a way out of making court appointments a purely political exercise, we need to rid ourselves of the concept of lifetime appointment.

[blkmusclmachine]

48. +1. Roberts has that same ignorant, frat boy, condescending smirk that George W. Bush has.

[shawn703]

20. An alternate solution

Would be for all these people complaining about the makeup of the SC to make sure they GOTV for Presidents that will nominate good Justices rather than corporate sellouts and Senators that will confirm them. Sometimes people just need to learn the hard way that elections matter.

[okaawhatever]

29. ^^^^THIS^^^^^ nt

[Bjorn Against]

40. Most of the people who are complaining do vote

But when a bad judge is selected they sit on the bench for decades with virtually no accountability. It is a huge problem and it would be extremely naiive to think elections alone can make it all better. The Supreme Court is far too powerful and it needs to lose some of its power.

[quakerboy]

59. We did that

Then the Supreme Court appointed someone else president over the vote of the people anyway.

[shawn703]

68. Which happened because

People elected Presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Bush who in turn appointed Justices like Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. Electing Republicans isn't in anyone's best interests, other than Republicans.

[smallcat88]

21. It's not just the supreme court

Look at some of the decisions by other judges - calling rape victims 'older' than their chronological age and so forth. There are a lot of people sitting on a bench who have no business being there. I'm starting to think there should be an IQ requirement for sitting on a bench or running for public office. My cats are smarter than some of these jokers!

[Bluenorthwest]

23. SCOTUS is joke

They are causing great harm to the United States. They are not representative of the population in any way.

[Gothmog]

26. The Roberts Court has jump the Shark

Last edited Wed May 7, 2014, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

A great deal of the power wielded by the SCOTUS relies on the public opinion that the SCOTUS is a non-partisan body that makes legal and not political decisions. Starting with Bush v. Gore, the public is becoming aware of the partisan nature of the court. Citizen's United and Shelby County (the opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act) have added to the public preception that SCOTUS is a very partisan body. Scalia's dementia is not helping things with comments such as the one made about the Voting Rights Act and voting rights being a racial preference.

Since the days of Marbury v Madision (the judicial review opinion), the SCOTUS has relied on other branches of government to enforce their decisions. The deference shown to the SCOTUS on these issues will not last much longer given the extreme decisions coming from the SCOTUS.

This is a very serious issue that Roberts needs to be concerned about.

[Jefferson23]

28. Good! n/t

[snot]

30. Personally,

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the judicial system; the problem is the elective branches who appoint/consent to them, which have been captured by the 1%.

[fasttense]

36. There is no justice in the judicial system anymore

No longer are the poor and middle class treated to the same justice and laws as are the uber rich. The uber rich commit fraud, theft and other crimes with no one paying back the stolen loot, with no one required to account for their fraud, with no one going to jail. Just check the robo signatures on most any mortgage document and you will find fraud. But who went to jail for that?

If a man lies on his unemployment form he will be imprisoned and fined. But not CEOs who commit crimes on a daily basis. A man was sentenced to life in prison for stealing a pair of tube socks. You and I are slowly being picked off with more and more draconian laws putting more and more of us in prison to feed the prison industrial slave labor camps. Cops are running out of people to jail, so they create more and more silly laws to put more people into prisons. More people in prisons means prison corporations make money, the corporations that get the slave labor from the prisons make money and the justice system goes along with it all.

There is no justice in our judicial system as long as a rich man can commit fraud without being held accountable while the poor man is imprisoned.

[snot]

43. I wasn't talking about whether there is justice in it.

The point is not whether there's justice in the judicial system, but rather, what are the real causes of there not being justice in it?

I happen to believe that structural problems have developed with the other branches, and that those are in turn causing the problems with the judicial system. I.e., we need politicians, elected representatives and executives, who are not bought; once that happens, I think much or most of the injustice showing up in the judicial system would be alleviated.

Think about it: the worst things happening in the judicial system come from the facts that prosecutors and cops are corrupt/militarized, judges are selected by politicians beholden to the 1%, and the laws that judges must apply also serve the 1%.

None of those problems would be solved by term limits on judges – all that would accomplish is to push our corrupt politicians to make their bad appointments a bit more often.

[libodem]

31. And what party is the most offended over

The possibility of activist judges? I swear Republican protection tells the whole story. So transparent.

[VA_Jill]

35. How about

once they get confirmed, they then have to spin a big wheel that determines the length of their term…….? Or maybe draw lots, like the Amish do for their bishops? Makes as much sense as anything else. That way it couldn't be rigged, or at least it would be harder.

[Cha]

37. It was not very visionary to give them life terms in the first place.

[passiveporcupine]

38. I'd vote for term limits and a mandatory retirement age

After all, the younger generations are hipper and more progressive than most of the older gens, so why do we keep hanging onto older people to make our most important laws and rulings?

It's the youth of this country that brings change and progress. I'll admit there is something to wisdom with age, so we need a mix, but there should be reasonable limits.

[Bjorn Against]

39. There certainly needs to be some checks and balances placed on the Supreme Court

The court has far more power than any group of unelected people should ever have. There are checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches, but there are almost no checks and balances on the court. The President can veto a bill passed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto with 2/3 vote. In order to override a Supreme Court decision however it takes a Constitutional Amendment, something so difficut to achieve that it has not been done in over two decades. It is ridiculous to give five unelected people the power to completely change the interpretation of law and making it virtually impossible to overrule their interpretation.

Let's face it the Supreme Court is an extremely undemocratic institution and it needs to have some of its power stripped from it.

[TeamPooka]

41. Corruption corrupts the faith of the people in the institution. nt

[Enthusiast]

42. There should be a huge protest of the Bush v Gore decision.

Look at the damage that fucker did to the nation.

[blkmusclmachine]

44. The Fascist 5 on the SCOTUS would never allow term limits (for R's).

[Tommymac]

49. Vote of No Confidence System would be an alternative

Let the National electorate give a Vote of Confidence/No Confidence for each Supreme every 3 years on a rotating basis. - 3 justices up each year.

Get 1 (or perhaps 2) cycles of No Confidence vote with a 66% majority then the Congress would be required to vote to remove them with a simple full legislative majority; with the Executive getting a veto if desired, and then a 2/3rds majority of the full Legislature to overturn veto. Not perfect but at least it would give some better control over the Supremes without the drastic term limit solution.

[tofuandbeer]

51. SCOTUS seems to be a weak spot in our government.

A weak spot that was discovered, and is now being used against the majority.
Every year we take one more step toward being an oligarchy. Fuck, it already seems like we're on the door steps of being an oligarchy.

[rhett o rick]

54. The SCOTUS is the most powerful branch of our government. This is clearly not what our

founders had in mind. It's time to clip their wings.

[tofuandbeer]

55. Agreed.

[Flying Squirrel]

53. If we put term limits in there now,

They'll surely grandfather in the current SC Justices and we'll be screwed because the presidency is not gonna swing Republican again for at least another 10 years - possibly longer. We'd be limiting our own appointees, not the Republicans'.

[valerief]

56. We have the best SCOTUS billionaires can buy! nt

[Oakenshield]

58. The SCOTUS is just one element where our government is EXTREMELY flawed.

We would be much better off with a coalition government.

[grahamhgreen]

62. All we need is for Congress to revoke the peer of judicial review.

[burnsei sensei]

64. Personally, I can't lose something I never had to begin with.

When the illustrious Roberts went before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I remember him saying that he would come to each case with an open mind.
How nice.
No precedents.
No education.
No background, just the Mind of the Great One and the Problem He Had to Solve.
I knew I couldn't trust him then.
And that no one else should.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, however, thought otherwise.
They trusted an open mind, apart from the background and context that should have been honestly stated.

[Native]

65. The root of the evil

is present day law re campaign financing. If we can get an amendment to the constitution that levels the playing field, then all else will fall in line. IMO.

[Gothmog]

71. Impeach Scalia and Thomas

Both Scalia and Thomas violated judicial ethics by going on all expense paid trips to Koch brothers event. If we get control of the House, these two could be investigated

[BlindTiresias]

72. requires the political will to do that

There is none in the Democratic party.

[Gothmog]

73. Hearings on the Koch Brother meetings attended by Scalia and Thomas would be enough

The SCOTUS is losing favor with the American public due to all of the political decisions. Thomas would put pressure on Scalia and Thomas if Congress started holding hearings on their activities.