cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Edmund55
Senior Contributor

Term Limits

House democrats introduce bill imposing term limits on SCOTUS justices - but not for congress.

You gotta love em.

7 Replies
gh2002gh
Senior Contributor

Re: Term Limits

😂

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Term Limits

https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4925#:~:text=Khanna's%20bill%20would%20e....

Interesting.  Don't agree, but interesting.

Currently -- There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.  The underlying factor that serves as a control valve on the appointment of a justice is solely the confirmation process of the Senate.

The SCOTUS provides a general measure of continuity, predictability, and confidence that goes well beyond that typically espoused by the other branches of government.  Their allegiance should be to the constitution, as amended, and our country, not to any particular President or political party, nor their personal preferences.  If any limits should be imposed, I would favor a couple of limits (below), but retain the otherwise "lifetime" appointment because it provides a measure of independence to do what is right under the law, and removes their fear of losing their job if unpopular decisions are necessary.

- As a minimum, I believe a justice of the SCOTUS should meet all the minimum requirements for a President (must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years).  

- Maintain the confirmation process of the Senate as it currently stands, subject to any future modifications by the Senate.

- While I still favor a "lifetime" appointment, an upper age limit remains reasonable -- age 80 is old enough, and allows for a potential service of 45 years if appointed at age 35.   Therefore, I believe a justice of the SCOTUS should end their service no later than noon of the April 1 following their 80th birthday.  I picked April 1 because it allows time for seating and organization of any new Senate, while also providing ample time to precede any November election.

- Of course, a justice of the SCOTUS may still choose to resign or retire at an earlier date of his/her choosing.

- All sitting justices of the SCOTUS at the time of enactment of these limitations would be subject to the minimums and limitations so stated, except that any who already exceed the maximum age limitation as of date of enactment should have a maximum period of 5 years from date of enactment to resign or retire at a date of their own choosing, or otherwise be forced to resign or retire as of noon of the April 1 following the 5th full year from date of enactment of this limitation.

Thoughts?

 

sdholloway56
Senior Advisor

Re: Term Limits

The wisdom of it aside, the Senators and Representatives face a review by voters every 6 or 2 years, the POTUS every 4.

A term limited justice would have no personal interest in politicking if he/she is just permanently done after 18.

That's actually a very centrist proposal- an attempt to slightly reduce the vitriol associated with confirmations in recent years.

BTW, I'll 200% bet that if it was 15 years down the road, the current crop of "Federalists" was aging and D's were in a position to place justices the GQP would be the ones proposing that. Assuming that the 18 year clock started from there.

*other than occasionally cherry picking something from the Federalist Papers for an originalist position, bears no resemblance to the actual articles.

sam1wiseone
Senior Contributor

Re: Term Limits


@Edmund55 wrote:

House democrats introduce bill imposing term limits on SCOTUS justices - but not for congress.

You gotta love em.


Nah, if they are doing poorly they can be impeached.  Democrats just searching for more ways to grab power as is there tendency.

Structural change for the better would be to repeal the 17th amendment.   Return power to the states. 

sdholloway56
Senior Advisor

Re: Term Limits

Yeah. The whole thing went sideways when they repealed the Articles of Confederation.

sdholloway56
Senior Advisor

Re: Term Limits

Actually don't think they can be removed over their judicial actions- it has to be personal misconduct.

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Term Limits

If you did the 18-year thing, you'd still need to specify how to transition to it in some fair and reasonable manner in order to stagger the terms so we're not replacing too many at once.  After implementation how often would there be appointments of part of the justices, like 1 new every 2 years, 3 new every 6 years, along with how appointments to fill any unfinished terms would work.  However implemented, would likely still be at least a decade before system would be working as intended, therefore, I'd still be more in favor of a simple age limit.  Either way, it would likely require a constitutional amendment ratified by the states.