Term limits on supreme court judges?

  • Thread starter Thread starter |3illy the |&lt
  • Start date Start date
Now if you really want to have an interesting idea ...

When a SCotUS slot comes vacant, have the PREVIOUS President select the judge. If the previous President isn't alive, then use the one before that, etc.

Now THAT would be interesting. Maybe Presidents wouldn't try to piss off the previous administration or try to undo everything they did, for fear of having the courts stacked against the sitting President.
 
You want to amend the constitution to challenge the powers established in the first 3 articles? Good luck. Limiting the courts already limited power would create a power struggle in the 3 branches. Besides I'd be willing to bet that a justice would challenge the legality of such an amendment.




They're not accountable to higher judgment because they are the SUPREME COURT....hence the word SUPREME. No one should be judging the judges after they've been approved. It renders a courts opinion useless.

The whole reason for a court is to provide ultimate judgment on the law. Saying "we need a method to judge how well the ultimate judges are rendering judgments on law" makes the justices of the supreme court quite useless. The affect of which is centralized power in the two other branches and a floundering judicial branch that is subject to constant review and criticism.
Articles of Confederation Part II.
 
Not the courts setting policy. That's the courts establishing their interpretation of the law. They were setting precedent by saying that they would not hear evidence in which miranda rights were not provided.

The court ruled on the interpretation of that sentence and determined that without informing the person of so called "miranda rights" or that the government would be in violation of compelling an individual to be witness against himself. It would be coercive. It's illegal for the police to be coercive....that's pretty straight forward. As a result they can't just sit down and coerce someone into confessing. So how does one establish that they are not coercive....and were asking questions?
Well you inform the person of their rights. At least in this manner you have warned them. Anything after that would hardly be coerced since they are aware.



So not a supreme court justice.
and continue....
 
Life Appointments are the only way to go.

They should also be barred from employment afterwards.
 
Since it has no enforcement ability, and no method of controlling the purse strings, it is very much the weakest part.
 
before we go any further, what is your definition of setting policy?

I think all federal justices should be treated the same, I was pointing out a local example you could find out more information about.
 
Hell no.

But I don't see the harm with putting a 3 or 4 term (4 year presidential term) limit on them. Their appointment would still survive the President who put them in office, even if that President was elected twice, so some care would still have to be given ... not to mention, they still would have to survive a Senate approval.
 
THUS SETTING POLICY.


There's no such thing as "miranda rights". The rights are 5th Amendment rights. It's the miranda WARNING.
 
Imagine if you told the CEO of a company that he was only hired for 4 years then would have to leave?

What would encourage him to work hard?

A lame duck president is bad enough, I could only imagine a lame duck supreme court justice.
 
I'd like to back up.

Some people are bitching about this "problem" but nobody has demonstrated an actual problem to me.

Can someone point out when/where/how this has been an *ACTUAL* problem, and what it was?
 
seriously, read 78 and 79 as Publius recommended
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

You won't be disappointed. Hamilton explains it pretty well.
 
So, nobody can explain it in their own words? We're just going to point to a federalist paper as an authority figure and leave it at that?
 
I'm against it too. The American people do not have the means or the time to critically analyze judges. It would just allow for too much corporate and special interest group confusion.
 
Back
Top