Supreme Court Term Limits!

[IndyOp]

The Progressive Populist is calling for 10-year terms for Supreme Court members - starting now. Creative! Worth a call to DC -- who do you think would be willing to lead this charge?

Make Justice Accountable

Right-wingers are demanding a "fair, up or down vote on Judge Roberts" and others of Bush's judicial nominees. We'd take those calls seriously if Republicans in the Senate had not routinely blocked Bill Clinton's choices for appellate courts.

Colleague Nathan Newman says Democrats should demand term limits for Supreme Court justices before they approve any of Bush's picks for the court. If John Roberts is confirmed for the court, he could easily sit there for 30 years or more.

"The current system creates an incentive to appoint younger lawyers with less experience to the Supreme Court, bypassing those with more experience," Newman writes at nathannewman.org. "This is the exact right time to have a discussion about judicial term limits and would highlight Bush's goals of controlling the courts long after he's gone from office."

We agree that lifetime appointments sustain oligarchy in a democratic society. We think a term of 10 years or so, which would require a constitutional amendment, would insulate justices from politics but allow the public to remove jurists who have overstayed their welcome.

Scroll down this page to see original:
<http://www.populist.com/05.17.edit.html>

:kick:

[BlueEyedSon]

1. yup

[Zynx]

2. Bad idea. What if the Republicans control the government for 20 years?

Then the court will be loaded with right wingers for long enough to dismantle everything. I oppose term limits in all levels of government. If you continually remove justices every ten years, you will have a court continually bending to the popular will or that is at least be reflective of it and that's not necessarily a good thing. The system works just fine now.

[trotsky]

3. I think it's fair.

But I wish we had proposed it under Clinton. Now it just looks like we want to change the rules in the middle of the game because we're losing - and that's the Republicans' standard M.O.

[WeRQ4U]

4. I hate this idea.

How much MORE do you want to politicize this judiciary? And what do you suspect will happen once the term limits for the liberal counterparts run out? We'll have a rotating group of republican nut jobs interpretting the laws in perpetuity.

Lifetime appointments are the ONLY saving grace for a judge who's had a decidely republican past. Knowing he answers to NO ONE makes it easier to disregard a poitical upbringing he or she may not agree with, and only used to gain his or her position.

[IndyOp]

7. A rotating group of republican nut jobs! - Poetic image, that - ;-)

We elect and re-elect judges at the local and state level (or at least we used to before Diebold started casting and counting votes for us) -- so what's the diff?

[WeRQ4U]

10. They are different for some very important reasons.

First, state and local judges interpret state and local laws. THey interpret common law. They do not interpret the federal constitution or federal laws. If they are do venture into those waters they are bound by the precedent of the SCOTUS. That's a HUGE difference.

Second, state and local judges don't make new law. They are subject to review by not only the local appeals court but also the State supreme Court. The SCOTUS does not answer to any other insitution. They're interpretation of law is considered binding on all other courts interpretting those same issues.

If you combine Judicial Term LImits with an uncertainty regarding voting machines, you are plodding towards some very dangerous territory .

[ultraist]

13. I agree. Keep the politicking out of it, as much as possible.

No term limits. Term limits equates to "campaigning" for SCOTUS Justice positions. Bad idea.

[firefox]

8. Call me a moron then. I think it is a good idea.

The 10 years might not be the best, but the idea is sound. When someone can be on the SC for 30 or more years, there is just too much at stake. Out of 300 million people there are plenty of people to chose from and these 9 are not so gifted and precious as to be given so much time to cast a shadow.

[WeRQ4U]

15. I'm not going to call you a moron...you're here aren't you.... ; -)

I just think that this is the newest liberal meme that people have adopted, without really thinking it through.

But you are allowed to think so. This is just MY opinion.

:toast:

[IndyOp]

16. I think this should be 'Lack of term limits..."?

Lack of term limits are the ONLY saving grace for a judge who's had a decidely republican past. Knowing he answers to NO ONE makes it easier to disregard a poitical upbringing he or she may not agree with, and only used to gain his or her position.

This sounds theoretically possible - Do we know of any justices who have 'swung' while on the court as a result of this freedom?

[WeRQ4U]

18. Sorry, yeah, that's what I meant. I edited it.

[IndyOp]

20. Do we know of any justices who have 'swung' while on the court...

Do we know of any justices who have 'swung' while on the court as a result of the lack of term limits? They must all write memoirs...

[WeRQ4U]

21. While you can't be sure that their freedom caused the swing.......

There have Justices that have moved away from their suspected views. Sandy O'Connor was one of the more recent. She's a moderat conservative but was thought to be stongly conservative when appointed. She voted contrary many times.

[Squatch]

5. Weak position

While I support the notion of SC term limits, this article does nothing to support any position:

We think a term of 10 years or so

Nothing screams arbitrary as much as "or so".

A much more defensible position would be to state:

"We believe that a term limit of 10 years is necessary for reason A, B, and C. Not implementing this would result in D, E, F."

[IndyOp]

12. '10 years or so' is weak - what would you

suggest would be the right term? and why?

[Squatch]

14. I have no earthly idea.

I say the position is weak because of its obvious arbitrary nature, did you not read my post?

[IndyOp]

17. I responded to you because I did read your post.

I thought you might have an opinion - maybe not informed by having attended law school or by having served on the bench yourself - just an opinion.

I won't bother you again. :(

[Squatch]

19. Hey, no problem. The thing is, the OP can be dismissed

prima facie because of the arbitrary nature of the claim.

[sui generis]

6. great idea

it "smooths" the range of what we find acceptable as a supreme court nominee.

It is one of the three branches of government, and has been clearly proven to be partisan and filled with ideologues not afraid to write rulings based on their own narrow vision of political propriety rather than judicial propriety.

It needs to be governed by the same temporal regulators that control our other branches of government.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Term Limits always a bad idea, but how about re-confirmation?

I suggest re-confirmation every 9 years. Nine justices, reconfirmation every nine years means an average of one a year. Sounds about right. Maybe make it reconfirmation every 12 years, to account for appointment confirmations.

[IndyOp]

11. Hey - I like this -

or at least we get to test drive each appointee's judicial temperament for 9 years and then decide whether or not they are confirmed for life. I like the every 9-year reconfirmation -- they are reconfirmed or 'allowed to retire from the bench'.

Why are term limits always a bad idea? Michael Moore said that he looked up the turnover rates of members of the old Soviet Politburo and found that they turned over more often than members of the US Congress. I would like to see limits of 12 or 18 years.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Term Limits are always bad. It got Clinton turfed out, didn't it?

Let the voters decide. Make it harder for incumbents in other ways, but term limits are proving to be bad in California. It means you lose experienced, cooler heads for the incoming noobie hot-heads. Term limits is like using rocket propelled grenades to kill roaches in your kitchen.

[IndyOp]

25. I am not wedded to the belief that term limits are always good -

I am also not convinced that they are always bad.

Yes, we want experienced, cooler heads - so we have to take back control of the voting machines and elect cooler heads. Because we do want experience I suggested term limits of 12 or 18 years -- that is a long, long time.

The fact that Clinton was turfed out does not bother me in the least. Yes, of course, I would LOOOOOOOVE to see the big dog back in office if he was the only other option than *. Clinton's policies toward corporations are part of the reason why we are where we are today. During his watch, according to UNICEF, over 500,000 Iraqi children died due to the UN/US economic sanctions. Economic sanctions that hurt the rich - fine, but these sanctions killed the vulnerable and Clinton would not see it - still doesn't, still blames it on Saddam when the UN personnel who oversaw the Oil For Food program have said over and over that the problem was the nature of the sanctions.

:kick:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. From your idea, what about this?

Confirm them, then have a first reconfirmation in five years, the next nine years after that and then once every 12 years. Or maybe various modifications, such as five year, seven years, and then every nine years?

[WeRQ4U]

24. This idea is even MORE politicized than Term LImits idea.

You'd have judges making decision to effect their re-election. You do not want that. You want judges making decisions based upon their genuine interpretations of the US Consitution. Hell, I would be happier with a genuine conservative interpretation of the Constitution than the knee-jerk election-inspired huey that this scenario would lead to.

[rinsd]

26. What a bunch of partisan bullshit....

...if Gore was naming justices right now do you think this subject would even be broached?