PDA

View Full Version : TERM LIMITS for Supreme Court Justices




Pauls' Revere
09-30-2018, 01:23 PM
I'm in favor of it. What exactly that looks like I don't know but I think its time for this to happen. Perhaps a seven year term? idk but we should remove the "gravity" of a lifetime appointment from the nomination process. It would require a constitutional amendment but we've done that many times before.

I would like to see what RPF'rs think. (sorry no poll) and I've included some arguments from debate.org.

https://www.debate.org/opinions/term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices-are-term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices-a-good-idea

spudea
09-30-2018, 01:46 PM
I like the middle ground compromise of mandatory retirement age of like 70-75. I agree with the Founders vision of a steady and non-politically influenced judiciary, and lifetime appointment is vital to that aim. But then we do see judges try to wait out retirement so they can politically choose their replacements, like RBG is doing now, so just make a mandatory retirement age.

RJ Liberty
09-30-2018, 01:50 PM
I'm definitely in favor of it. In what other profession is a work appointment for life? As far as I know, life tenure is limited to high-ranking judges in the US... and popes in the Vatican.

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2018, 02:27 PM
You mean teh FFs weren't perfect? :eek: O KURWA! Teh conservatives are going to be upset when they discover this thread...

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2018, 02:29 PM
Lifetime tenure would be a lot less problematic if SCOTUS was accountable to a jury like the Jay court was, tho...

nikcers
09-30-2018, 02:52 PM
I don't think that this would dilute the power of the supreme court or get the people out that we can't elect out like in congress. I think its a good idea in spirit because the supreme court has become far too political and powerful. I think people have a terrible understanding of the role of government and putting better people in government will give us a better justice system because they will nominate better judges and be a better check in power to the supreme court.

Swordsmyth
09-30-2018, 05:28 PM
I think the President should get to fire and replace them with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of the problems with our system is that it nearly prevents reforms and it slows corruption to a crawl so that the "boiling frog" effect happens, if things could change faster wee would see more reform or more revolts against tyranny.

Zippyjuan
09-30-2018, 05:36 PM
I think the President should get to fire and replace them with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of the problems with our system is that it nearly prevents reforms and it slows corruption to a crawl so that the "boiling frog" effect happens, if things could change faster wee would see more reform or more revolts against tyranny.

That would give the President too much influence over the judiciary. "Support what I want or I will fire you!" Also make it easier for a party to pack the court.

Swordsmyth
09-30-2018, 05:42 PM
That would give the President too much influence over the judiciary. "Support what I want or I will fire you!" Also make it easier for a party to pack the court.
The President would need the advice and consent of the Senate and if you read the rest of what I said you would see that my whole point is to allow for more political control of the judiciary.

Why do you like being ruled by unelected dictators in black robes?

Zippyjuan
09-30-2018, 05:43 PM
The President would need the advice and consent of the Senate and if you read the rest of what I said you would see that my whole point is to allow for more political control of the judiciary.

Why do you like being ruled by unelected dictators in black robes?

They are supposed to keep the other dictators in check. That is why the founders set things up that way.

Swordsmyth
09-30-2018, 05:51 PM
They are supposed to keep the other dictators in check. That is why the founders set things up that way.
The founders made some mistakes, lifetime appointments to SCOTUS was one of the bigger ones, they don't keep the other branches in check, they facilitate them or legislate from the bench.

navy-vet
09-30-2018, 07:34 PM
Sounds like plan b to me.

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2018, 08:01 PM
The founders made some mistakes, lifetime appointments to SCOTUS was one of the bigger ones, they don't keep the other branches in check, they facilitate them or legislate from the bench.

You should tell your congresscritters to return to the Jay court style where a citizen jury checked SCOTUS decisions. Let us know what response you get. ;)

Swordsmyth
09-30-2018, 08:05 PM
You should tell your congresscritters to return to the Jay court style where a citizen jury checked SCOTUS decisions. Let us know what response you get. ;)
You think SCOTUS would be improved by the D.C. jury pool?

dude58677
09-30-2018, 08:50 PM
I think there should be juries at the Supreme Court.

Swordsmyth
09-30-2018, 08:59 PM
Jury system = bad judgements and citizen slavery (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508939-Jury-system-bad-judgements-and-citizen-slavery)

Pauls' Revere
09-30-2018, 10:21 PM
I like the middle ground compromise of mandatory retirement age of like 70-75. I agree with the Founders vision of a steady and non-politically influenced judiciary, and lifetime appointment is vital to that aim. But then we do see judges try to wait out retirement so they can politically choose their replacements, like RGB is doing now, so just make a mandatory retirement age.

I like the retirement age as well, there is appeal (pun intended) to that.

However, I disagree with the tenure for life appointment as a way to supposedly get around a political bias a judge may have or develop. The opposite can alos happen, where a judge now has tenure and life appointment and can be as political as they want to be without fear of reprisal. Lifetime appointment does not guarantee an unbiased judge.

Pauls' Revere
09-30-2018, 10:23 PM
If we were to go to term limits what would the time/term be? I think it would be best if it avoided election cycles. So perhaps a 5 year term?

asurfaholic
09-30-2018, 10:49 PM
I’m not for short term limits. If anything the 70-76 age limit would do it, but I’m all for long standing justices who do not change every so many years. The OP speaks of the “gravity” of a lifetime appointment as if that’s a bad thing. I think the “gravity” is actually incredibly powerful at keeping the Supreme Court from just going with whatever way the wind is blowing or what the flavor of the week is.

Last thing you want is every few years end up taking a chance that a new Justice is an activist working to undo years of constitutional protection.

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2018, 11:54 PM
I’m not for short term limits. If anything the 70-76 age limit would do it, but I’m all for long standing justices who do not change every so many years. The OP speaks of the “gravity” of a lifetime appointment as if that’s a bad thing. I think the “gravity” is actually incredibly powerful at keeping the Supreme Court from just going with whatever way the wind is blowing or what the flavor of the week is.

Last thing you want is every few years end up taking a chance that a new Justice is an activist working to undo years of constitutional protection.

Let me put this to you-the average person in 1776 only lived ~35 years or so. Therefore, a "lifetime" appointment wouldn't have the kind of consequences it does now. A whole justice career back in the day tended to span 5 years or so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

asurfaholic
10-01-2018, 12:13 AM
Let me put this to you-the average person in 1776 only lived ~35 years or so. Therefore, a "lifetime" appointment wouldn't have the kind of consequences it does now. A whole justice career back in the day tended to span 5 years or so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

Do you honestly think in today’s political and social circuses that America/the ruling class would end up putting constitutional conservatives in the Supreme Court every 5 years? With a lifetime appointment I think the weight of picking a good one actually works in the favor of reducing the chances a real dirtbag ends up in that position.

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 12:18 AM
Do you honestly think in today’s political and social circuses that America/the ruling class would end up putting constitutional conservatives in the Supreme Court every 5 years? With a lifetime appointment I think the weight of picking a good one actually works in the favor of reducing the chances a real dirtbag ends up in that position.
If the system allowed more dramatic changes the frog might have jumped out of the pot before we got to where we are.

asurfaholic
10-01-2018, 04:45 AM
If the system allowed more dramatic changes the frog might have jumped out of the pot before we got to where we are.

Do you really believe that?

I sure don’t.

heavenlyboy34
10-01-2018, 10:38 AM
Do you honestly think in today’s political and social circuses that America/the ruling class would end up putting constitutional conservatives in the Supreme Court every 5 years? With a lifetime appointment I think the weight of picking a good one actually works in the favor of reducing the chances a real dirtbag ends up in that position.
The system was not designed to allow dramatic changes. It was designed to allow the State and tyranny to preserve itself. The Anti-Federalists were right.