General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat would it take to change Supreme Court tenure to 10 years?
This life long position situation is ridiculous. If we don't change something, we will have supreme court ruling after ruling on behalf of the billionaires, ultra-mega corporations, religious cult right and racists etc.
We have to stop this RW cult take over!
edhopper
(33,669 posts)rsdsharp
(9,242 posts)are appointed for life on good behavior. It would require a Constitutional amendment to change that.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)A constitutional amendment sounds like a big task, but it has been done before and we can do it again. While we are at it, that 2nd amendment needs work.
0rganism
(23,996 posts)so they would honor only the law of the land and interpret it without consideration of political consequences
at least that's the story, your mileage may vary
bearsfootball516
(6,378 posts)If you have a president that serves two terms and then the next president is also of that party, that's 12 years. With justices serving 10-year terms, that party could stack the court 9-0.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)We want fair. There must be a way.
Stuart G
(38,458 posts)For example in 1954 or was it 55..Brown vs the Board of Ed, made segregation "illegal." That over time improved the country and our attitudes. Yes it took time. And that was a very important vote, that probably would not have happened if there were term limits. When that decision was made, the justices knew that they would not be thrown out because of that decision. And the founding fathers knew that and that is why they put it in.
......Say the Supreme Court makes a very strong ruling against Mr.Trump. A ruling that limits him in a very positive way. (you can fill in the blanks)..Now, if the justices needed to be reappointed, then maybe they would think different about making such a ruling. But they don't need to be reappointed. That is the real reason why McConnell holding up Obama's appointment was so .."evil"...Yes, there is a rung in hell for McConnell, and it is exactly the same rung for Trump. They can live in hell together...
icymist
(15,888 posts)until 'the next election' simply because they controlled the Senate. No, people need to be allowed to or get up and vote ever single election.
YessirAtsaFact
(2,064 posts)Take all three branches of government and expand the court with liberals
Easier said than done
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I too heard that. It would take dems in power to be willing to take a strong action like that.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)I believe FDR had proposed it, but even though Democrats controlled the House & Senate, they backed off when they got a lot of negative press over it. Otherwise, it's been set at 9 since the 1860s
After the original number of 5, he number had gone as high as 10 and as low as 7
https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(5,011 posts)He needed the decisions for Commerce Clause to go his way. The threat of adding justices caused the needed shift in the needed votes. It was brilliant.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)FDR tried to enlarge it but met with Congressional opposition. I can hear the screaming now if a president tried to mess with it. The lifetime appointment part is in the Constitution and much harder to change.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)and still couldn't get it done. It's been set at 9 since the 1860s, though.
YessirAtsaFact
(2,064 posts)Theres reason to call Gorsuch an illegitimate justice.
Expanding the court is a way to remedy this situation without impeachment of Gorsuch.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)and that was over 200 years ago. Doubt it would happen with Gorusch without gross misconduct. And, if Democrats did succeed, it sets up a Republican response of impeaching a Democratic appointee over a parking ticket.
samnsara
(17,667 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)onenote
(42,885 posts)While it is true that the average lifespan was relatively short at the time the Constitution was written, there was a huge gap in the lifespans of the privileged class (which included the founding fathers) and the average person. Talk about 1 percenters...folks like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. had access to far better nutrition and medical care than the average landowner.
You can see this vividly in the first eight presidents of the United States --they lived anywhere from 67 (Washington) to 90 (Adams). The average was nearly 80. Every one of the first eight (and well beyond that) were elected to their first term while they were in their mid-50s to early 60s.
That is the cohort that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with -- they weren't expecting Justices to die at age 50 or even 60. And, in fact, many of the first members of the Supreme Court lived into their 70s and 80s. Four of the first dozen or so ended up serving on the Court for 30 or more years.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Lots of people lived to a ripe old age
Freddie
(9,283 posts)Increase the # of justices - is perfectly OK in the Constitution and probably easier than getting term limits. Certainly not easy. I fear this country is truly fucked for a generation.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)We are fucked....in my lifetime anyways.
FarPoint
(12,487 posts)A parallel universe....it's not happening in our lifetime
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)genxlib
(5,547 posts)And there are pros and cons. As pointed out above, that duration would allow a stacking that would be dangerous.
But I would like to point out an aspect of this. I am disgusted that justices are chosen for their youth because that translates to the longest possible reign of the court. We deserve better choices than the youngest person available. I know that it isn't the worst aspect of who is being nominated but it sucks.
I would add that any such proposal must come with an absolute prohibition on after-term activity; no political office, no lobbying, nothing. One of the advantages of lifetime appointments is that we don't want them beholden to anybody.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)onenote
(42,885 posts)Traffic cases?
Volunteer... Read to Kids...I don't particularly care as long as they don't make money in any way that is influenced by the court (in others words.. in any way at all)
We could afford to give them a cushy retirement. It would be cheap compared to the influence that would be for sale otherwise.
That would be part of the deal in taking the position
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Any judge, including Supreme Court ones. Why we need big wins in Nov 2018 and 2020 with congress in our hands and a filibuster proof senate...hell a super majority senate. We can rid the bench of 2 right away
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)This entire RW cult take over is illegitimate. Many need impeachment!
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Phoenix61
(17,028 posts)mandatory retirement age. It's 65 for pilots who are responsible for the lives of several 100 people at a time. A Supreme Court Justice is responsible for millions at a time so 65 seems like a fair one for them too.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Good idea on the age limit. We need to do something.
onenote
(42,885 posts)It would be a disaster.
Phoenix61
(17,028 posts)Implement it for all new appointees.
no_hypocrisy
(46,331 posts)And with gerrymandering comes Republicans being elected in both the Senate and the White House. And said republican President will continue to nominate repugnant judges to the USSC and the republican Senate will confirm said judges indefinitely UNTIL we can stop the rigging of elections NOW. Otherwise, would it matter whether the tenure is 10 years or until retirement or death?
quartz007
(1,216 posts)Include scotus, congress, all judges, all bureaucrats ... Make it a true citizens gov't and reduce corruption by orders of magnitude. Then give them a moderate pension and send them out to make a living on Main Street.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)People develop expertise in careers. Would you support a ten year limit on someone's career as a surgeon? If not, then why impose such a limit on diplomats or regulators or legislators?
quartz007
(1,216 posts)Lobbyists have no use for lame duck congress critters.
A the more seniority congress critters get the most lobbyist money and favors.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)New blood in the game works to their advantage, not their disadvantage.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)People have a right to redress - you can't cut off access to legislators.
And, even if it managed to get around the Constitution, any such legislation would also cut off access of Planned Parenthood and the Children's Defense Fund and the NAACP and ACLU and many other organizations and causes that rely on the right and ability to lobby Congress.
mythology
(9,527 posts)It would transfer even more power to lobbyists.
quartz007
(1,216 posts)For example committee chairs (selected with seniority) have the most power.
Lobbyists are not going to waste money on congress critters who are temporary
And will soon be outÎ of power.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)No, thank you.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,931 posts)You would lose vast amounts of institutional memory and knowledge, which is exactly what's going on right now in agencies like the EPA where experienced people are leaving in droves.
Given that federal judges are all appointed, and even without mandatory retirements, Congress is frequently very slow at approving nominees, we'd pretty soon have no serving judges at all.
If anything, corruption would remain the same, possibly even increase, given that everyone would do his or her best to benefit from the short time in office. Sort of like Presidents of Mexico.
quartz007
(1,216 posts)to outlaw all private & corporate contributions for political campaigns. All should be funded equally by the tax payers.
quartz007
(1,216 posts)fact how important seniority is in congress.
All committee chairs are usually the most seniority people.
Committee chairs collect much more political contributions.
All that tells me is people build enormous power by remaining in congress for decades.
George Washington and the first government had no prior experience running the government, and they did fine in preserving the country.
Government has become too bureaucratic, and too slow.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,931 posts)than running the government is some 250 years later.
I do believe that certain senior Democrats should be retiring, but whenever I dare say that and name names here on DU I get alerted on. But my issue tends to be an age one. If someone who is in the 8th or 9th decade of life is still running for re-election, and there's no sense of paving the way for someone younger, that's an issue.
Which is vastly different from a 10 year term limit. Especially a ten year term limit for Supreme Court justices. As has already been pointed out, every single year there would be a new Justice appointed, and the political uproar over the nominees would stop everything. Or if the President is not of the same party as the Senate, after a few years we'd be down to four or five Justices. Not a good idea.
Let me put it this way: would you want only to be seen by a physician with ten or fewer years of experience?
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,011 posts)Whenever people talk about term limits it is usually about the other guy and not their representative.
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)quartz007
(1,216 posts)Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)quartz007
(1,216 posts)There is too much going against the party in White House.
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)And now they are doubling down and saying anyone in detention doesn't get their kid back which means unless you plead guilty you kid remains in baby jail.
vi5
(13,305 posts)..instead of just assuming that nominating a moderate and asking nicely and hoping the press would do their job and assuming that Republicans would be shamed by and pay the price for their unprecedented obstructionism.
There were lots of people saying this and pushing for this but were told "Relax.....we've got this." or "We have to keep these systems in place or when Republicans in charge they'll be able to screw us." any number of other dismissive retorts to any push for a more aggressive posture in the face of what we were dealing with.
And now we yet again are in yet another in a long line of "Who could have predicted?!?!?" situations.
Fullduplexxx
(7,882 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)If we had ten year staggered terms, there would be a Supreme Court fight every year: when the President's party didn't control Congress, we'd operate with a diminished court; and if two-term President controlled Congress near the end of his term, the Court would be dominated by that person's appointees
quartz007
(1,216 posts)Who ever voters elect will choose judges. People like Nunes will not yield so much power if term limited.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)depending on the vagaries of elections. Nothing could be more destructive of our tradition of the rule of law
quartz007
(1,216 posts)I have and had lots and lots of 90 year old people in family.
Both my grandfathers lived past 95. I saw them in their 70's,
Then 80's then 90's. The reduction in their cognitive behavior was palpable.
When my mother was 75, she was smart as a whip. Traveled on her own from
Mumbai to Chicago by herself. At age 95 she was just a shadow of her past,
At age 103 just before she passed away, she did not even recognize me!
Advance Age does deteriorate the mind.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)He seems to have been of sufficiently sound mind at age 90 to write and deliver the Court's opinion in the tax case Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) and in McBoyle v. US 283 U.S. 25 (1931)
There is some reason to think that a habit of mental activity may postpone cognitive decline. Tottering and demented justices has not been a problem in our history.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,931 posts)85 years old. Supreme Court Justice since 1993.
quartz007
(1,216 posts)10 years ago (when she was 75)? Have you got an example of her recent writings? I think 75 should be retirement age for all judges.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,931 posts)she is every bit as sharp as she ever was.
People who stay intellectually engaged and active tend to lose less than those who retire, plunk themselves in front of the TV all day and do nothing at all to learn anything new.
Jim Gunn, a science fiction writer, is now 94. He'll be 95 next month. I saw him last month at a science fiction event (the Campbell Conferfence) in Lawrence, KS. He's getting physically frail, but he is every bit as sharp as when I first met him in 1992.
quartz007
(1,216 posts)I have nothing but admiration for justice Ginburg's work for decades. The problem is she is a cancer survivor, and 85, and I have a cancer survivor in my own family, and I have seen first hand the toll it has taken on body. I have seen photo's of the justice unable to stay awake during meetings. But now that Rump is president, I would encourage her to stay on as long as necessary. If I were her, I would have retired during the Obama presidency. After the Justice Kennedy news today, I certainly do not want Rump to get daily double.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Argued April 24, 2018 Decided June 14, 2018
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,011 posts)The terms of office that were developed were brilliant to allow for some wild fluctuation and a competing balance.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)We have 300+ MILLION people, and FIVE people should not be in charge of our laws..
If we had 21 justices we would have a better system..
It would take 11 to TAKE a case, and 11 to DECIDE a case
BUT
the actual deciding 11 would be a random draw.
The right wing nutcases would be more wary of taking a case that they might not be deciding
It might also prevent all the bullshit lawsuits which are designed to rise up to SCOTUS, because there would be no more "sure things"..
States have a better way of handling things:
https://ballotpedia.org/State_supreme_courts
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)We need actual democracy and more judges will help.
I just hope the fake president doesn't do it now and fill the court with extreme radicals.
Thanks for the link about the state judges!
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Lifetime appointments breed political corruption and stagnation.
MichMan
(12,002 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)are no unions or tenure...it was so political and they were cheating on tests like crazy..resigned.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)The work environment has become almost hostile and very unproductive and destructive.
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)kids who don't do well on the tests or the principal just didn't like...they were as young as 14. When I refused, I was called insubordinate and shit was spread about me all over the school...The kids I taught however did very well in testing so that was ironic. I had what was considered the worst class...I loved them however...I was also supposed to show kids standardized test. This is illegal. I resigned.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)it is appropriate to protect people against whimsical or politically-motivated retaliation
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)nor does our system of lifetime appointment of judges prevent their removal
Lew-Port teacher fired for 'demeaning' students, colleagues
By Thomas J. Prohaska
Published Mon, May 28, 2018
Updated Mon, May 28, 2018
It takes a lot for a tenured teacher to be fired in New York State. For a teacher at Lewiston-Porter Central School District, it took a documented history of being mean ...
Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges
librechik
(30,678 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)be considered and voted on inside a certain time frame, such as a month.
onenote
(42,885 posts)There needs to be time to vet a nominee and organize and build opposition
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)From stealing a judgeship
onenote
(42,885 posts)if forced to take a vote. They could argue that they weren't given enough time to vet the nominee.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(5,011 posts)And to make sure that they weren't so subject to influence.
The House has the opportunity to turn over every 2 years. The Senate is more stable with only 1/3 possibly being turned over every two years. The President lasts 2 two-year cycles. The lifetime is there so that there aren't huge swings in the way things are interpreted.
I like that collection of turnover times.