Term limits on supreme court judges?

  • Thread starter Thread starter |3illy the |&lt
  • Start date Start date
The original constitution would supercede the amendment. Hence Marbury V. Madison. The amendment would be unconstitutional.

There is a check for the Judicial branch....they're appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. Both branches get to question judges before they're appointed. Hence why we have Congress confirm them in the first place.

You're asking how do we remove someone we think is making bad decisions. The point of the supreme court is that you can't remove someone just because you disagree with them. It's sole power rests on it. Otherwise we'd constantly have bickering over the judges and we'd be removing them just to replace them with people that agree with us.

Judges serve so long as they are in good standing. They're logic....their intelligence is confirmed by the Senate. Later revoking that opens the door to having the Judicial branch be the lackey of one of the other branches. Hence why the only provision the founding fathers provided for keeping a judge was Good Behavior.
 
Why are people fine with presidents and congress elected for non-life terms, but when it comes to the Supreme Court everyone gets their panties in a bunch?

People say the justices will pander and sacrifice their values, but by the same logic, why not give presidents and congresspersons life-long office so they don't pander?

The executive and legislative branches can fuck over the country just as much as the judicial.
 
"Our different States have differently modified their several judiciaries as to the tenure of office. Some appoint their judges for a given term of time; some continue them during good behavior, and that to be determined on by the concurring vote of two-thirds of each legislative house. In England they are removable by a majority only of each house. The last is a practicable remedy; the second is not. The combination of the friends and associates of the accused, the action of personal and party passions and the sympathies of the human heart will forever find means of influencing one-third of either the one or the other house, will thus secure their impunity and establish them in fact for life. The first remedy is the better, that of appointing for a term of years only, with a capacity of reappointment if their conduct has been approved." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

"Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389

"If this would not be independence enough, I know not what would be such short of the total irresponsibility under which we are acting and sinning now... We require a majority of one house and two-thirds of the other [for removal of a judge]--a concurrence which in practice has been and ever will be found impossible; for the judicial perversions of the Constitution will forever be protected under the pretext of errors of judgment, which by principle are exempt from punishment. Impeachment, therefore, is a bugbear which they fear not at all. But they would be under some awe of the canvass of their conduct which would be open to both houses regularly every sixth year." --Thomas Jefferson to James Pleasants, 1821. FE 10:198

"If a member of the Executive or Legislature does wrong, the day is never far distant when the people will remove him. They will see then and amend the error in our Constitution which makes any branch independent of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1807. ME 11:191


"Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." - Jefferson

"The exemption of the judges from that [from election] is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it [control] from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Jefferson


"t is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government. . . . Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the legislative or judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them." - Jefferson
 
Balance, IMO.

Some are elected short term, some are elected long term, and some are lifers.
 
Bro, amendments amend the constitution, that is what they do. They have become a check on the Judicial System but that isn't enough.

We have a system in NYS for removing old Justices and we don't have the problems you are describing.
 
You mean of 2/3 majority base that have been rallied to come to the polls by their prospective party?

2/3 majority of those who even bother to vote in any given year?

Considering some of the stories I've seen about irrational crowds rallied up by talking suits over every little issue (mostly irrational), I come to the conclusion that in the hands of a national vote on appointing justices, we would end up with mad televangelists as justices.
I do believe any national vote of this nature would be on a whim and orchestrated by special interests. More to the point, it would lead to instability and chaos.
 
i trust thier judgement. most of the really old people i know dont tip toe around worrying about peoples feelings, they are too old for bs, they just do what they gotta do and say what they gotta say
 
No. The reality would be that they would be beholding to the president for re-appontment. Even strict term limits where they can't be appointed again...they might end up thinking how they could affect affect future carrer options by their current votes on cases.
 
We also don't have a problems you're describing on the national level. Typically Justices with health problems step down.

Why open the door to possible abuse through those problems when the system isn't broke. The three branches are pretty balanced in their powers. For some reason people think that the Judicial system now has extraordinary powers....yet they're still the weakest of the three branches.

Both of the other branches have on/off powers. The judicial system only has off powers. They can't create law....only rule on cases and provide insight into the meaning of laws that are questioned before them.
 
He allowed you to live, I question his judgement.

I don't think 90 year old judges are a good thing, life appointments are not a good thing.
 
How do you know that?

I believe the system is broken, I don't believe we should be trusting 90 yr Justices to make our most important policies. They were never supposed to even make policy in the first place.

The Judicial branch is the most powerful because under the current setup it gets to decides its own powers. The judicial branch makes laws and policies all the time.
 
Instead of term limits, why not have a mandatory age at which they must step down?

Sure the AARP might cry out that it's "age-ism" or whatever, but fuck them we already have "age-ism" encoded in our Constitution in minimum ages to hold certain offices. A maximum age wouldn't be such a bad thing either.

And to avoid any talk of arbitrariness, why not tie to the average life expectancy of the nation rounded to the nearest year? For example that would mean that right now the retirement age would be 78 (since the CIA world factbook says U.S. average life expectancy is 78.11 years).
 
2/3 of 50% is only 1/3. No one party can muster a 2/3 majority.


Yes.


Oh yeah, it's really really easy to muster a 2/3 vote. Hell, Presidential elections always end with a 2/3 or more majority. It happened as recently as...

1820 when Monroe ran unopposed. And twice before that: Washington's first and second terms.

So yeah, you're right. Republicans or Democrats could really easily whip up a 2/3 majority, whenever they want.
 
Back
Top