Should Supreme Court Justices be a lifetime appointment?

[Quetzal]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

 

[BSM1]

You think a 6 year term limit would produce less pressure than an appointment after a death or retirement? What we are seeing now would happen every 6 years x 9.

 

[columbus]

It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements.

Totally the opposite.
It would give political parties big, well funded, reasons to pressure judges into leaving.
Call it retirement if you want.

But if some billionaires offered you a ton of money to leave and let their choice of President replace you, would you leave?

How about someone let you know that your grandchildren were in danger of losing their.....

No. There's a good reason for lifetime appointments. It's the best bulwark against politicizing SCOTUS we have. And it's still not working very well in the 21st century. The elite have figured out that they don't have to buy SCOTUS. They just have to buy McConnell.
And he's cheaper than Trump.

Tom

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think a better resolution would be to bring back filibusters on new appointments. Slow down the ability for cronyism to happen. There SHOULD be lots of red tape and discussion before appointments.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

Absolutely not. It's my understanding that we're about the only country in the world that still gives lifetime appointments to their highest court members. Perhaps when people had much shorter life spans it could have been argued as reasonable, but even then I've never understood the reasoning. I read this article not long ago - tried a quick search but haven't found it yet - where the writer laid out a system in which we gave each justice a certain term (it may have been 6 or 8 years, I'm not sure) that could be designed so that each president had a justice member scheduled to retire during their 4 year term, but only one. Thus every president would have the opportunity to nominate one justice to the court, two if they win two terms, but no more. In the case were a justice dies during their term then any justice nominated to replace them would only serve the remainder of the original justice's term, instead of a full 6, 8, or whatever years it was per term.

It sounded like a far better system than the one we use now, where a single president can conceivably nominate the majority of the justices on the court during a single 4 year term that will have consequences for the nation for many decades to come.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

More frequent turnover would have more effects.
Because court sometimes re-examines decisions by
prior justices, this could happen more frequently.
Is it good?
Stare decisis might be weakened.
Is that good?
I don't know.

 

[Sunstone]

The Montana experience shows that when supreme courts are elected, they tend to be more responsive to the people -- as opposed to being captives of special interests, as our national Supreme Court seems to be.

 

[bobhikes]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

I believe we need term limits on Congress before the Supreme court. The supreme court should be non- political replacing them more often makes it more political. The Senate decides if they are qualified the Senate needs to be less political forcing out the old guard every so many years at least will keep the senate current.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First of all, from Constitutional Amendment Process:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. ...

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).​

Do-overs are really, really hard. They are also purposefully hard.

With respect to this particular thread, I think @Revoltingest made an important observation when noting that "stare decisis might be weakened." Furthermore, it seems to me that regular and frequent presidential appointments can only serve to weaken the hoped for independence of the Court.

One possible alternative lies in the approval process. We have a system that requires a super-majority to invoke cloture but a simple majority to seal a lifetime appointment.

 

[pearl]

I'm ok with lifetime appointments as I think it safeguards against future political pressure.
The Court that decided RvW was a Republican Court.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think Justices should be selected by a non-partisan panel of legal experts, myself. Just totally depoliticize it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

It would make the Supreme Court another political body, and give you momentum swings every couple of years instead of once per decade.

I saw an interesting point recently: the number of justices isn't spelled out in the Constitution. It's set by law, and that law can be amended by Congress. I'm worried for a US where the Republicans hold the House, Senate and Presidency, because they'll be able to stack the Supreme Court by enlarging it to whatever size they want, and then filling the new positions with right-wing appointees.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have been thinking about the current problem we are facing. I theorize (without any evidence) that limiting the terms of justices could help. I think a 6-year term would fit nicely. It would take away the pressure of political parties trying to steal seats by pressuring retirements. Additionally, it would take away the momentum swings that would come from the death of a justice. Thoughts?

I think lifetime appointment is the right way to go for the Supreme court in the USA. Whomever is appointed will not feel loyaltyl to administrations or houses of congress. They can be loyal to ideas and not feel pressure to change their opinions, hopefully. All the lower courts have terms, and I like, too. Its like tenure. Once the judge is in neither Biden nor Trump can tell them how to make their decisions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think Justices should be selected by a non-partisan panel of legal experts, myself. Just totally depoliticize it.

And I think that the Supreme Court Justices should be transported to and from work on the backs of unicorns.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And I think that the Supreme Court Justices should be transported to and from work on the backs of unicorns.

What was the point of your post? It was an idea. The OP's idea isn't any more feasible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I saw an interesting point recently: the number of justices isn't spelled out in the Constitution. It's set by law, and that law can be amended by Congress.

I found this interesting: Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What was the point of your post? It was an idea. The OP's idea isn't any more feasible.

I think there is a difference between highly unfeasible and grossly naive. On what planet do you expect to find "a non-partisan panel of legal experts"?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think there is a difference between highly unfeasible and grossly naive. On what planet do you expect to find "a non-partisan panel of legal experts"?

You know, you could choose to converse with me in a civil way without being rude. Try that first.