Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.
One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure - a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure.
The idea isn't original, and it's not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long.
It began to percolate in the 1980s and '90s after a series of bruising Senate confirmation fights, although it's never gained much traction. A handful of bills and proposed constitutional amendments have been filed in Congress in recent years to little effect. But Perry's embrace of the idea, combined with his states' rights principles, may demonstrate how he would push as president to change the balance of power in the federal government.
Perry, in his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!," derides the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes" and writes: "We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability."
Perry devotes an entire chapter to his indictment of the judiciary. The proposal to eliminate life tenure is barely a footnote, but that's enough to inspire sharp passions.
"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn't because he's looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."
Perry's stance is remarkable in the sense that presidents have long viewed the power to shape the judiciary as one of the prizes that comes with winning the White House.
That's why the stakes are so high and the fights so fierce when a rare Supreme Court vacancy arises. It's a key reason President George W. Bush picked a 50-year-old conservative, John Roberts, as chief justice, planting seeds of a legacy that could persist for decades longer than his own presidency. And it's unclear if more frequent confirmation fights would insulate the judiciary or make it even more politicized.
At Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, president Nan Aron noted that five of nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.
Railing against the judiciary is an effective way for Perry to attract conservative voters, she said, but "I don't know that he's fully thought that through. ... He would want his judges to serve for life."
Paul Carrington, a Duke University law professor and former dean who has led the effort to impose term limits, agreed that the current system breeds arrogance.
He called it "nuts" to let octogenarians run the country. "It's ridiculous to have a person sitting in a position of that much power for 30 or 40 years," he said.
Impeachment.
“Seems to me that conservatives don’t think far into the future. What sounds good under a republican dominated government can bite you hard under a democrat led government.”
That’d be a valid point if Republicans controlled Congress. Since they don’t, I don’t know where you’re coming from.
I support that for the Legislative and Executive branches. I just don’t know how I feel about it for the senior areas of the Judiciary. They must be free from political interference.
Agree 100%.
Reduction of infant mortality has accounted for most of this increased average longevity, but since the 1960s mortality rates among those over 80 years have decreased by about 1.5% per year.
You don’t think their appointments and confirmations are “political”?
I meant that their ability to make rulings shouldn’t be interfered with by politicians or voters. Certainly, their appointments are based on political ideology.
That would fix nothing.
That would not guarantee a better appointee as a replacement.
The cure for bad SCOTUS justices lies with electing Constitutionalist Presidents, not with changing the system of their selection or their term.
Opportunities for “change” on the court can work against Conservatives as easily as for us. It is no panacea.
Anyone interested in putting Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts up for replacement, by law, before end of Obama’s term? No? But you would place that burden on some future situation?
I won’t.
I WILL
always work for Presidents to appoint judges with respect for the written Constitutions and ITS MANDATES for limited government.
HELL NO!
On this one, leave the Constitution alone.
How would term limits affect their rulings?
Lifespans have greatly increased since 1776. I think one 20 year term is more than enough time for anyone on the court
Wrong, it is stupid to waste the time talking about it,. But it does show a complete like of understanding about what it takes to amend the Constitution on amnesty Perry’s part. Think about the problems the country has, we will be long broke by spending before a change to the Constitution would pass the states.
I’m against it. A Supreme Court justice could always be removed via Impeachment if there was some kind of compelling reason which the Congress felt existed.
The real problem with the supreme court is the fact that our “moderates” will confirm any marxist moron the democrats want.
“If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution...”
If you follow that line of logic then the Constitution would never be amended, even though the Founding Fathers provided us with 2 methods of having the Constitution amended.
We do follow that logic how many time has it been amended.
There is nothing wrong with term limits-including politicians.
Anyone who believes that the original constitution should go UNAMENDED is totally off their rocker. Amendments are warranted when necessary otherwise slavery would still be legal. I totally respect the founding fathers but they were not fortune tellers. Amendments are pretty hard to get approved - as it should be - and some are definitely warranted. Let the people decide! An unamended constitution represents dictatorship, pure and simple. This is America - everything is up for discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.