Huckabee calls for Supreme Court term limits

Hotair ^ | 03/29/2015 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

As he continues the process of “considering” running for President, Mike Huckabee is rolling out some of the golden oldies of political bones to chew. Such was the case this week when he trotted out the time honored proposal of putting limits on the terms of Supreme Court justices.

Prospective presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called Saturday for the imposition of term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices, saying that the nation’s founders never intended to create lifetime, irrevocable posts.

“Nobody should be in an unelected position for life,” the former Arkansas governor said in an interview, expanding upon remarks he made during an hourlong speech at the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda.

“If the president who appoints them can only serve eight years, the person they appoint should never serve 40. That has never made sense to me; it defies that sense of public service,” he said.

There were obviously arguments among the founders on this subject, but it’s a bit problematic to claim that they “never intended” the justices to have lifetime, irrevocable posts. First, the wording of Article III seems to lend itself to the idea.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Granted, given the way our language has evolved over the centuries there is room to debate precisely what that means or if a lifetime appointment is inferred, but Hamilton waxed a bit more poetic on the subject in Federalist 78.

The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the Judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of Government. In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the Prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any Government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

Obviously it’s not entirely clear, though, as there have been other efforts in the past by members of both parties to curb the power of the court. Shortly after Barack Obama took office a diverse cast of Washington characters cooked up the Judicial Act of 2009 which suggested a number of structural changes to the court, including the possibility of what clearly look like term limits in one form or another. But even then it sounded like they were wrestling with the obvious “constitutional objections” which the proposal faced and looking for some side doors to get around them.

Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.

I’ve yet to see such a proposal which is anywhere near ironclad, and I doubt any of these would pass muster. And that doesn’t even begin to address the fact that any such legislation, once enacted, would be immediately challenged and eventually need to receive the blessing of … the Supreme Court. I hate to sound this cynical yet again, but come on. Are they really going to approve a scheme like that?

No, I’m afraid that if people really want this sort of a change it’s going to take a Constitutional amendment or convention. But do you really want to change the system? Even if you are unhappy with the current makeup of the court it can always eventually get better. Or worse. You just never know, do you? But it’s hard to argue that Hamilton and his peers were on the right track when they worried over justices who were so concerned for their employment prospects that they felt pressure to bend to the will of the public or the media every time a controversial decision came down the pike. The system is far from perfect, but I’m sure it could get even worse if we begin tinkering with it on a fundamental level.

[BobL]

So 2 or 3 CONSERVATIVES are forced off the Court, with Obama as President. Not sure if I’m ready to board that train.

I’d MUCH RATHER allow for Congressional Review. Maybe an Amendment that says ALL DECISIONS are subject to Congressional review and that if 60% of both houses vote to overturn, then it is overturned.

At a MINIMUM it would force the Democrats to support some of the crap, like Kelo, rather than hiding behind the courts, as they have done for the past 50 years.

[Amendment10]

With all due respect to Mr. Huckabee, please consider the following.

The main problem with the corrupt federal government is not corrupt justices imo. Please bear with the following explanation.

I’m sure that patriots are well aware that whatever is screwed up in DC then Bush did it, or so corrupt Democrats would like for everybody to think.

On the other hand, patriots need to consider that if they start blaming everything, including the faces on the Supreme Court, on the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, then they will probably be at least partly correct most of the time.

So let’s amend the Constitution to give Mr. Huckabee term limits on Supreme Court justices. But since we are now well aware that the corrupt Senate cannot be trusted to work with the House to remove impeached government leaders from office, Mr. Huckabee’s amendment needs to include the following provision. His amendment needs a provision which optionally gives 2/3 of the state legislatures the power to remove bad-apple federal government leaders, including activist justices, from office.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

18-yr term limit with generous pension.
Lifetime ban on any government or lobbying job.
Speaking fees capped at $50,000.

[RobbyS]

No one ever expected the Supreme Court to have the power it is exercising.

[RobbyS]

Something simpler: an age limit. Say age 75. In fact it would be a good idea for Congress as well.

[House Atreides]

I am SO happy that grifters such as Huckabee were not around to be among our nation’s founding fathers. He’s an absolute disgrace.

[Impy]

The idea of an elected Supreme Court with gerrymandered districts to ensure a Republican majority is intriguing. But could we get to 6-3?

[HiTech RedNeck]

that would be worse than losing ginsberg and stevens under bush

[BillyBoy]

I'm for term limits for SCOTUS, provided that We The People are the ones who decide whether to retain the Justices. As Fieldmarshaldj noted, it would have been disastrous if the last few SCOTUS judges terms expired and the President/Congress got to decide whether to retain them.

We'll probably never have a fully elected SCOTUS where they run for the seat in and have to win primary elections (though that would be my ideal system). A middle ground compromise would keep the current system of the President naming vacancies and the Senate confirming them, but then leaving it up to voters if they want to retain those judges for another term. Ideally, it would curtail senile federal, lazy, and corrupt federal judges from serving for life, and if a judge "evolved" on the court, they could be dumped for their treason.

Illinois has a fully elected judiciary and it works well, although the Crook County court system is effectively a one-party system of getting the job due to buttering up RAT party officials, and those judges are never denied retention (and we vote on dozens of them every election cycle!) Statewide, the judicial branch is probably the best of the three branches (I will continue to say that after "Republican" Rauner took control of the executive branch). Illinois Supreme Court judges are elected by district in partisan elections (I believe Illinois is one of only seven states to do this) and serve for a term for 10 years.

[BillyBoy]

>> The idea of an elected Supreme Court with gerrymandered districts to ensure a Republican majority is intriguing. But could we get to 6-3? <<

Although appointed, the SCOTUS judges have always represented federal districts (back in the pre-civil war days, they were required to "ride the circuit" and spent much of their tenure visiting local courts in their district. I'd like to return to that system in some form and get these guys to stop being in the beltway year-round).

If we were to switch to an elected SCOTUS, you'd ever have to eliminate two of the federal districts, or expand the membership of the court to 11 Justices (technically there are 13 federal districts, but the Chief Justice represents the DC circuit and the Federal Circuit at large).

I've been intrigued by the idea for a while. One thought that crossed by mind about a decade ago if that my region of the country was "represented" by John Paul Stevens of Chicago, and he could have hypothetically been fired if his district (namely Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana) got to vote on whether to retain him in a statewide election.

In any case though, the current map would have to be redrawn to some degree. One of the best things that would come out of a partisan redistricting is that the 9th circuit as we know it would cease to exist. Right now, its obscenely large in both area and population, and would have a hugely disproportionate electorate (compared to the rest of the country) that would make popular elections in the "district" a huge burden:

Hypothetically, it shouldn't be hard to gerrymander whole states to create a 6-3 or even 7-2 Republican majority on SCOTUS. We'd just pack all the RATs into west coast and northeastern coastal districts. Federal circuits 1 and 2 could be combined into some safe RAT district stretching from Maine to New York.

[Impy]

We should have had the IL Court after we won the Southern IL seat in 2004, but don’t cause a rat had won a Republican seat in 2000 (in Western IL) and is still there.

My ideal system for IL Supreme Court would be 3 districts (1 most of Cook, 2 the most GOP parts of Cook and Collar Counties, 3 the rest of the state), Justices elected for 6 year terms, each district having a seat up every 2 years. It would give us a margin of error, allow a rat to win up to 1 GOP seat without costing us the majority. It’s so hard (so far impossible) to beat a Justice in a retention election even though they need 60%. Lloyd Karmeier, our guy in Southern IL, came close to losing last year after a major push.

[pepsionice]

Personally, I’d like to put a limit of twelve years on all Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court judges.

[Impy]

I was thinking for some reason the districts would have to be equal in population (which the circuits obviously aren’t now). If not, problem solved.

[hinckley buzzard]

The Constitution mentions “good behavior” but not life or any other tenure

Correct, and the only real reform that could be implemented is for Congress to legislatively define what "good behavior" means, and to provide triggers for impeachment in the case that the standard is violated by a judge.

[jospehm20]

I think we should go back to Senators being appointed by state legislatures.

[campaignPete R-CT]

this is politics.

I was justly rudely admonished at church for being a pro-lifer. I wasted by breath on the bastards.

low lifes at churches are the worst of the lot. Please send in AIR STRIKES!!

[Impy]

Sounds like you were at the wrong church.

[BillyBoy]

Here’s what states the justices currently represent, along with my suggestion how the electorate as a whole would vote in that region of the country:

1st Circuit
Senior Judge: Stephen Breyer
District of Maine
District of Massachusetts
District of New Hampshire
District of Rhode Island
(SAFE DEMOCRAT)

2nd Circuit
Senior Judge: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
District of Connecticut
Eastern District of New York
Northern District of New York
Southern District of New York
Western District of New York
District of Vermont
(SAFE DEMOCRAT)

3rd Circuit
Senior Judge: Samuel Alito
District of Delaware
District of New Jersey
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Western District of Pennsylvania
(LEANS DEMOCRAT)

4th District
Senior Judge: John Roberts
District of Maryland
Eastern District of North Carolina
Middle District of North Carolina
Western District of North Carolina
District of South Carolina
Eastern District of Virginia
Western District of Virginia
Northern District of West Virginia
Southern District of West Virginia
(LIKELY REPUBLICAN)

5th Circuit
Senior Judge: Antonin Scalia
Eastern District of Louisiana
Middle District of Louisiana
Western District of Louisiana
Northern District of Mississippi
Southern District of Mississippi
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas
(SAFE REPUBLICAN)

6th Circuit
Senior Judge Elena Kagan
Eastern District of Kentucky
Western District of Kentucky
Eastern District of Michigan
Western District of Michigan
Northern District of Ohio
Southern District of Ohio
Eastern District of Tennessee
Middle District of Tennessee
Western District of Tennessee
(TOSSUP, SLIGHT REPUBLICAN)

7th Circuit
Senior Judge Elena Kagan
Central District of Illinois
Northern District of Illinois
Southern District of Illinois
Northern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Western District of Wisconsin
(TOSSUP)

8th Circuit
Senior Justice Samuel Alito
Eastern District of Arkansas
Western District of Arkansas
Northern District of Iowa
Southern District of Iowa
District of Minnesota
Eastern District of Missouri
Western District of Missouri
District of Nebraska
District of North Dakota
District of South Dakota
(SAFE REPUBLICAN)

9th Circuit
Senior Judge Anthony Kennedy
District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington
(LIKELY DEMOCRAT [Due to California and Washington state being able to outvote the rest of the district])

10th Circuit
Senior Judge Sonia Sotomayor
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
(SAFE REPUBLICAN)

11th Circuit
Clarence Thomas
Middle District of Alabama
Northern District of Alabama
Southern District of Alabama
Middle District of Florida
Northern District of Florida
Southern District of Florida
Middle District of Georgia
Northern District of Georgia
Southern District of Georgia
(LIKELY REPUBLICAN)

---

And here’s some gerrymandering ideas if the justices were elected by popular vote:

* Alito’s district would be redrawn so he represents Pennsylvania, West Viriginia, and Ohio.

* Kennedy’s district would be redrawn to remove the coastal (and island) states, so he would represent Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Utah. After he retired, he would likely be replaced with a much more conservative judge.

* Kagan’s 6th and 7th districts would be merged and cut down to place her in Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Wisconsin, and maybe Missouri. She’d be zotted faster than a pro-gay marriage troll on FR.

* Sotomayor is already toast if she had to face the voters in the current 10th Circuit.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

This F(H)uckabee chant is every bit as wrong as was FDR’s when he tried to ‘pack’ the court with a couple more Justices so he could have a majority. And at this point, I do not want him in a position to be nominating Supremes.

[AuH2ORepublican]

OK, a few thoughts:

1. If these “judicial districts” can diverge in population by more than 10%, then the Democrats could redraw them when they get a big congressional majority at some point (and don’t point out how difficult that would be given our natural advantage in the House and Senate, since 2006 and 2008 occurred despite our natural advantage) and really screw us. If we need a system tthinking that we can exploit it, count on the RATs screwing us eventually.

2. I don’t like popular elections of judges, and having them at the federal level (even if only for SCOTUS) could be particularly pernicious, even if Justices are elected by voters in particular multi-state judicial districts.

3. Having Justices serve staggered 18-yea terms, with a seat up every two years (one per Congress) so that each presidential term would see two SCOTUS appointments (preferably one in the first year and one in the third year to limit the effects of election-year politics), would give the voters more of a say in the selection process, given that we wouldn’t go through 10+ years without a SCOTUS vacancy like we did from 1994 to 2005 (when the Senators elected by the voters in 1994, 1996 and 1998 didn’t get to vote on any SCOTUS appointments during their respective terms). While a president could make more than two appointments (subject to Senate confirmation, of course) during a term if a Justice dies or resigns, any appointment for a partial term would be valid not for 18 years, but only until the term expires, which greatly reduces the benefit of self-dealing by Justices that time their retirement to coincide with a president and Senate of their preference. And by substituting an 18-year term for the traditional lifetime appointment, it eliminates the incentive for presidents to appoint young and possibly unvetted judges to SCOTUS, and permits them to name 60- to 65-year-old judges with a proven track record, since both a 50-year-old and a 65-year-old would serve the same 18 years. So if I were to change the selection process for SCOTUS, I would go with staggered 18-year terms.