Are Supreme Court Term Limits Coming Soon?

[mystery-ak]

Are Supreme Court Term Limits Coming Soon?
Biden’s Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court seems to favor judicial term limits.

Damon Root | 7.22.2021 2:00 PM

In April, President Joe Biden announced a new Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The group would be composed of legal scholars and activists and would "provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform," according to a statement released by the White House.

That commission has been meeting this month. And as SCOTUSblog's Mitchell Jagodinski has reported, "term limits emerged as the leading reform proposal, and the commissioners seemed interested in fine-tuning how they will treat that subject in their report to the president, which is due this fall." Jadodinksi continued:

Much of the panel discussions spent a great deal of time on how term limits could be implemented. One consideration is the specific duration. An 18-year term limit would mean a new justice every two years—or two appointments per presidency. Other potential timeframes include 12 or 16 years. But as Vicki Jackson, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, explained, 12 years may be too short and could allow a two-term president to appoint six of the nine justices.

more
https://reason.com/2021/07/22/are-supreme-court-term-limits-coming-soon/

[Fishrrman]

"An 18-year term limit would mean a new justice every two years—or two appointments per presidency."

No... don't want that.

Rather, instead of "term" limits, how about "age" limits?
As in, "mandatory retirement age"?

My amendment, brief and simple:
=============
All federally-appointed judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, will retire upon attaining the age of 73.

No person will be nominated to serve as a federal court judge or justice of the Supreme Court who is over 73 years of age.

The first paragraph of this amendment shall not apply to any sitting Supreme Court Justice or federal judge who is over the age of 73 at the time of enactment.
=============

[libertybele]

"An 18-year term limit would mean a new justice every two years—or two appointments per presidency."

No... don't want that.

Rather, instead of "term" limits, how about "age" limits?
As in, "mandatory retirement age"?

My amendment, brief and simple:
=============
All federally-appointed judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, will retire upon attaining the age of 73.

No person will be nominated to serve as a federal court judge or justice of the Supreme Court who is over 73 years of age.

The first paragraph of this amendment shall not apply to any sitting Supreme Court Justice or federal judge who is over the age of 73 at the time of enactment.
=============

That would be age discrimination. Compare the cognitive and physical ability of Trump v. Biden.  There is a huge difference.

I think term limits is a reasonable approach and should not only apply to the Justices but also to Senators and Representatives.

Senators  and Representatives a limit of 8 years -- elected every two years

Justices a limit of 10 years and they should be elected not appointed 

                 

[BassWrangler]

It doesn't matter. At this point we're either going to break up the union, or we're all headed full on down the path of leftist totalitarianism.

[GtHawk]

Not before Congress and Senate.

[libertybele]

It doesn't matter. At this point we're either going to break up the union, or we're all headed full on down the path of leftist totalitarianism.

 As the Declaration of Independence states;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,  the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation........
 
Unfortunately, I believe we may have reached that point.

I continue to pray for this Republic.

[jmyrlefuller]

I'm not sure how much term limits would help the situation, pushing even more of the judicial process into the hands of politicians. (There are a few positions where term limits are a net positive, mainly chief executives.) I have yet to see a firm connection between old age and egregiously bad decisions; I've seen lots of bad decisions from young judges too.

Maybe we need to treat the court system like we treat juries: pull names at random and compel them to serve. Like a draft... or Buckley's old suggestion of pulling names from the phone book.

[libertybele]

I'm not sure how much term limits would help the situation, pushing even more of the judicial process into the hands of politicians. (There are a few positions where term limits are a net positive, mainly chief executives.) I have yet to see a firm connection between old age and egregiously bad decisions; I've seen lots of bad decisions from young judges too.

Maybe we need to treat the court system like we treat juries: pull names at random and compel them to serve. Like a draft... or Buckley's old suggestion of pulling names from the phone book.

The judicial system is broken and extremely corrupt.  We vote for judges at the local level, why not vote for justices at the federal level?

Term limits would accomplish people like McConnell and Pelosi from serving for decades and may eliminate the stranglehold that they have developed on the people underneath them or continuing the 'country club network'.

Certainly age is a factor, but to set age limits would indeed be discriminatory; Ginsberg was an example of much needed term limits at the SCOTUS level.

While term limits certainly won't fully eliminate corruption, it does put a damper on it.

[Fishrrman]

bele wrote:
"Certainly age is a factor, but to set age limits would indeed be discriminatory"

You posted this above in reply to the post I made.
It is nonsense, pure NONSENSE.

The Constitution already has "limits" regarding age "baked into" it since its inception.
Of course, such limits are "mandatory minimums", to wit:
- 25 years of age to run for House
- 30 years of age to run for Senate
- 35 years of age to run for president or vice president.

No court has, and no court will, declare this to be "unconstitutional" age discrimination.

If the Constitution can set mandatory minimum ages as a matter of practicality and common sense, so too could it stipulate mandatory retirement ages, again as a matter of common sense.

And again, no court would be able to challenge such a stipulation, because it would be "Constitutional" by virtue of being adopted as a part of the Constitution itself.

[libertybele]

bele wrote:
"Certainly age is a factor, but to set age limits would indeed be discriminatory"

You posted this above in reply to the post I made.
It is nonsense, pure NONSENSE.

The Constitution already has "limits" regarding age "baked into" it since its inception.
Of course, such limits are "mandatory minimums", to wit:
- 25 years of age to run for House
- 30 years of age to run for Senate
- 35 years of age to run for president or vice president.

No court has, and no court will, declare this to be "unconstitutional" age discrimination.

If the Constitution can set mandatory minimum ages as a matter of practicality and common sense, so too could it stipulate mandatory retirement ages, again as a matter of common sense.

And again, no court would be able to challenge such a stipulation, because it would be "Constitutional" by virtue of being adopted as a part of the Constitution itself.

Those are obviously age limits set to qualify to hold office and also for obvious reasons; we wouldn't want to have someone 16 years old running for president. Once in office, I think setting age limits would be seen as discriminatory, just like it is seen in civilian jobs.  You cannot shuffle someone out of his/her job because of age.