Term limits on supreme court judges?

  • Thread starter Thread starter |3illy the |&lt
  • Start date Start date
That would be a stupid requirement. I doubt 2/3 of all eligible voters ever even vote. Might just as well say we can vote out justices if we get a gajillion votes.
 
I'm bored and waiting for my gf to get home from work so I'll leave you with this piece of fed. 78 from Hamilton....
He again makes two valuable points

1) That reward for continuance in office is a good thing for justices. As it encourages good judgment/behavior on their part.

2) The judicial branch is the weakest and being the weakest it must be kept separate from the other two. The problem being that the legislative and executive branches should not be able to judge their own proceedings. I think everyone agrees that it would be quite ridiculous. So the problem is that in those two branches you want to somewhat limit their power by having terms and not having kings/lords. In the justice system in order to stay separate and uninfluenced by the other two branches you need permanency in office to lend "firmness".

So as mover pointed out. You need to have the justice system independent of the other two branches (it's a recognized flaw of the articles of confederation). Also you want to limit the powers of the other two branches just from a constitutional view. To help the people. But if you have judges changing with presidents or congresses...the end result is a judicial system that falls under the control of either branch (which would be bad). So he argues, as I think many would, that permanent positions are quite useful for the judicial branch. It creates a morally uncorrupted type of judgment from government. One independent of the other two.
 
The Judicial system...even with Judicial review does nothing that courts haven't done for centuries.

oh goodness....please explain what you mean by setting policy and provide an example. Just so we can all be clear what you mean.

Also provide an example of a justice who was/is impaired beyond the ability to render judgment.
 
The problem we've run into now, is that via usurpations of power, the judicial has become by far the most powerful branch. Maybe the most important power of the president now is to appoint supreme court justices.
 
Considering that those "best friends" have to be approved by the Senate before they can take the bench, and thus must have at least SOME qualification for the position in order to actually make it on the Court? Yes. Far worse.
 
uh what ? No President get's 2/3rds vote. Obama barely got 55% or whatever. 66% is far from an irrational, fixed election.

Honestly, it's TOO difficult to acheive for a popular national vote and thus worthless. 2/3rds of the Congress and Senate would make a better idea.
 
because how laws and the constitution are interpreted shouldn't be subject to the whims of whatever party is in power at the time.
 
Ah, but he was under 75 when he made that decision. Further proving the point that those over 75 have better judgment than those under 75.



Anyway, I am totally against this. I want the SC to be influenced by politics as little as possible. This would do the opposite.
 
The supreme court, having ruled that it has the power to decide what the constitution says, is pretty much immune to the text of the constitution. They have pretty well shot down the 4th amendment already.


No, the amendment changes what the constitution says. As TKG said, that's what amendments do. They can only be superseded by a later amendment (See 18th & 21st amendments).


That's not much of a check. Deciding who can get in is nice, but once they're in, they're not accountable to anybody. The court is entirely UNchecked.
 
Go read up about the Warren Court, maybe you have heard of Miranda Warnings?

Go find a LOLyer and ask them about Judge John Curtin, he began serving as a Federal Judge for the WDNY in 1967 when LBJ was President. He still hears cases today and there are serious questions about his ability to do this at 89 years old.
 
Back
Top