15 year term for SCOTUS

[cthulu2016]

I do not think federal judges should, once seated, be "answerable" to the people or to congress, but given the extraordinary power of the Supreme Court there is no reason for the nation to be engaged in a bizarre ongoing longevity lottery, where a justice's influence on America is determined more by genes for cancer and heart disease than by brains.

And there is no reason for the Supreme Court to routinely feature members of very advanced age. The raw longevity of upper-class Americans has increased a great deal since the 1780s, and is unlikely to decline. The SCOTUS is always much older, on average, than any other institution of government.

And it is grisly to put people in the position of trying to literally survive an unfavorable Presidential term. (Sandra Day O'Connor famously awarded the presidency to George W. Bush so she could retire earlier to care for her husband, suffering from alzheimer's.)

And good lord... what place is there in a civilized government for an incentive to pass over seasoned jurists in favor of younger and more robust people for the most senior court simply in hopes of greater ideological influence? In what kind of world is Clarence Thomas a smart pick (he was 43) and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a dumb pick (she was 60)? In a sensible world Ginsberg would have retired at 75 years-old, and Thomas would have retired at 58.

(It's only a matter of time before some party does the logical thing and installs a twenty-something justice simply to maximize their influence.)

The simple, straightforward solution is that justices of the Supreme Court be appointed for one term of no more than fifteen years. (Or even 17 years, which is more than 4 presidential terms and seems like quite a long time.)

Aside from the tricky details in phasing in such a change, it should be a no-brainer amendment for the 21st century.

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. 20 or 24 years. Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment. (nt)

...

[cthulu2016]

2. The term is arbitrary, of course, but I picked 15 because

optimally, we want the best people and we would want a typical justice to serve out their term (without dying or getting to ill to serve)

The typical most highly qualified nominee is probably 50-60 and I wouldn't want candidates of that vintage to run a substantial risk of dying in office, hence my choice of 15. (Typical retirement age of 65-75, which is still older than any other job.)

[PoliticAverse]

3. A staggered 18 year term would make for 2 appointments each presidential term...

See the Wikipedia Term Limits article Supreme Court section...

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

[cthulu2016]

4. That's interesting reading. (Though I think an amendment would be required)

The argument that a life-term is not constitutionally specified for SCOTUS is intriguing, but since SCOTUS would be doing the interpreting and the current interpretation has been in place so long, I think a constitutional amendment would be required, in practice.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Interesting idea.

Although this is one of about 45 constitutional amendments we might need in my opinion.
And we may have bigger fish to fry, like getting money out of elections.

But it is important.

Just to play devils advocate for a sec, there may be some advantage of lifetime SCOTUS appointments...

I really don't want them expecting high-paying jobs as corporate board members, influence peddlers, special advisers, or lobbyists after their term is over.

That whole process has had a corrupting influence on Members of Congress and executive branch officials.

Just because of the way the life appointment has been practiced, that doesn't seem to be a big problem right now.

Does the lifetime appointment kind of give them a freedom to not have to worry about where they are going to work afterwards? Maybe they don't have to worry as much about making decisions unpopular with powerful people.

[Sherman A1]

6. Agreed

We do need more amendments. Our government is just locked up because we are trying to use a document created in a 3mph world to operate in the world of 2012. The basic frame work is great, but it seriously needs some updating.

[penndragon69]

7. 2 appointments per presidential election.

After each presidential election, the president gets to appoint 2 judges to replace the 2 most
senior officials on the bench.

This would help reduce the amount of partisan decisions caused by a 40 year
rule of a single party majority.

We can still dream, can't we?

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Abso-freaking-lutley! The constitutional clauses defining this

geriatric club of superannuated sclerotics needs to be modernized.

How macabre is it to be on a death watch, hoping that a justice does or doesn't fall ill or die?

TERM LIMITS--AMEND THE CONSTITUTION NOW!

[HopeHoops]

9. No. The term of a USSC Justice is self-limiting. It's called "mortality".

[cthulu2016]

11. The OP proposes a change

It is a thing made by people and changeable by people

[HopeHoops]

12. It is also contrary to the Constitution.

[cthulu2016]

13. The OP specifies that the suggestion is a constitutional amendment

[LanternWaste]

17. And if a salient, valid and relevant reason is ever given to reexamine the current limit

And if a salient, valid and relevant reason is ever given to reexamine the current limit, I'm sure people will be willing to do so.

[Javaman]

10. I've written about just this a number of times here on DU...

I took the average length of term (eliminating the shortest and the longest) and it came to 17. 3 years.

I rounded it to 15.

The terms would begin from this point forward. Any new justice would only serve 15 years. They would automatically be staggered due to the historic selection process.

And the staggering of the terms would continue if a justice is unable to finish their term for one reason or another.

My point behind this is: we pretty much already know when a justice is to be replaced and a new one is chosen.

There would be no more lifers.

On another point, ask me sometime about how we should be choosing our senators and reps.

[GarroHorus]

14. Agree for the SCOTUS, disagree completley for all levels below SCOTUS.

Don't get me wrong, but the federal judge level has too many holes as it is. If you attempt to term limit judges below the SCOTUS, you'll only exacerbate the problem.

And I don't think a 15 year limit for judges at the District and Circuit court level will stop the obstructionism of Republicans, it'll only make them more determined to block every appointment until one of their own is in place to make the appointments. The Democrats will have no choice but to reciprocate and no judge will ever be appointed.

Even SCOTUS appointments will be blocked on a regular basis if a 15 year term limit is put in place because it will always be better to obstruct appointments until your guy gets in place.

[cthulu2016]

15. I agree entirely

No reason for limited terms at lower levels, and when a lower court judge is elevated to SCOTUS the 15 year term would begin whatever their prior positions.

[Chan790]

16. Oppose any change. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Constitutional Amendments are impossible with today's political divisions.

You can argue it all you want but it won't get passed.

This goes for Citizens United and the Popular Vote too.

Not gonna happen anytime soon. Decades at least, and even that is optimistic.

[cthulu2016]

19. I agree entirely

There is no chance of any of several desirable amendments passing... and fortunately, little chance of a lot of bat-shit crazy amendments that would garner plenty of popular support passing either.

But though such a thing isn't likely to happen, its merits or draw-backs remain a valid topic for discussion.