Skip to comments.Is It Time to Give Term Limits to Supreme Court Justices?
Posted on 05/27/2014 10:17:11 AM PDT by QT3.14
This has been quite a time for anniversaries: the 50th of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 50th of the Great Society, the 60th of Brown v. Board of Education. Each has produced a flurry of celebrations and analyses, including the latest, on Brown. Here's one more.
Ten years ago, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Brown, I attended one of the most interesting and moving panels ever. Yale Law School brought together six luminaries who had been clerks to Supreme Court justices during the deliberations over the Brown decision. They talked about the internal discussions and struggles to reach agreement, and the fact that the decision actually took two years. The justicesincluding Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Sherman Minton, and otherstried mightily to build a consensus. Whatever their ideological predispositions, they all understood that this decision would alter the fabric of American society. They also knew it would reverberate for a long time, exacerbating some deep-seated societal divisions even as it would heal so many others and right so many wrongs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Tea Party Translation: “Time for Convention of States, term-limit SCOTUS, the right way - with an amendment (along with others to limit federal over-reach)”
What an icky website (National Journal.) It looks like bizzaro world.
Way past time.
Lets do it, but after bozo is out of office!
Yea!Its time.If the Supreme Court is going to go about making political decisions the should run for office every four years.
The system,the way it’s presently set up is harmful to this society.All you have to do is look at what this country has become because of decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Lifetime appointments to that court should and could be banned by Congress.
The founders argued this very thing during the ratification debates.
Some warned that what is happening now, was going to happen.
Term limits for Congress and the SCOTUS. Think of how long Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy have been on the Court. Imagine how much better the country would be if we could have replaced them back in 2005. We would not have the specter of gay marriage being railroaded through the courts and imposed on the states.
Justices should not be chosen by the POTUS. Limited, and selected by a committee of the states. Same with all federal judges. Holder has also proven that the Justice Dept should not reside within the exec branch.
“TRANSLATION: “Ubama is running out of time to pack the USSC with Alinskyites.” “
I think Scotus should be limited to 25 years. But you can do this and grandfather in the existing court so Obama can not do a takeover.
I’d rather repeal the 17th.
14 year terms, staggered so each Congress gets one. (Each presidential term gets two). No more strategic retirement issues.
The President may nominate a sitting justice (such as the one whose term expires) to the seat.
Vacancies - the remainder of the term (by resignation, death, or impeachment) are filled by nomination by the sitting president.
Phase-in is a bear, and might present an insurmountable political obstacle.
It would take a Constitutional amendment.
Or maybe CONgress can do its job and make use of Jurisdiction stripping to make law impervious to court interference.
This won't happen though. A lot of these bought-n-paid-for politicians love judicial activism because then they can blame these egregious decisions that they secretly agree with on the black robed tyrants.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The Founders mistakenly thought we’d never confirm depraved nutcases. AND they mistakenly thought both parties would impeach and convict such depraved nutcases. The judiciary made themselves political, so they should be required to stand for election.
Or an EO and a favorable court opinion.
And the 16th, and the 14th (see sec. 4), 23rd amendments.