Should the Supremes be appointed for life? How about 10 years?

[panader0]

Perhaps they could be re-appointed, but to set them up for as long as they want seems wrong to me.

[bigwillq]

1. I favor term limits (nt)

[panader0]

4. 10 years would mean that they would come due at mid term

Or something that would assure that not all the Supremes would be too right or left.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. It's done for a real and specific reason and was put in the constitution for that fromn the start.

Can you guess why the framers did what they did?

[angstlessk]

6. to de-politize the Supreme Court..the highest law of the land!!!

a no brainer..and Justice Souter is proof positive of the actuality of their original intent!

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Absolutely.

[Booster]

13. What was the life span of people when the Constitution was

written? Probably half of today's.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. what was the life span of passanger pidgeons when the constitution was written?

And what difference does it make, in terms of the reason the framers put lifetime appointment into constitution.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Why guess? Just read the Federalist Papers. Around the late 70s, iirc.

[angstlessk]

3. lifetime appointments is what makes them independent...how Souter

became an independent and NOT a republican whore!!!!

[Renew Deal]

5. And it keeps people from gaming the system.

[Laelth]

12. Most of them become more liberal over time.

Lifetime appointments are good for the left.

dem:

-Laelth

[billyoc]

7. Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

Good luck. :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. We need to open the hood on that engine of the country

aka the Constitution, and do a whole sale revision

That is one item... no more for life appointments to the courts

When the founders were around the life expectancy was what forty? These days is in the seventies

[Occulus]

31. Hold on- is it *POSSIBLE* to impeach and remove a Justice? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

10. Re-appointment would be disastrous.

The reason Supreme Court justices have lifetime terms is to prevent them from politicizing the court. If they must be re-appointed, then they are accountable not to the highest ideals of the law, but instead to the whims of a political President and a political Congress. They should not be balancing their votes against how likely their votes are to help them "win re-election" in Congress.

But things aren't significantly better even if they can't be re-appointed. A 50-year-old appointee would naturally have as a concern getting a job upon leaving office at 60--meaning they would be concerned with not just the law, but also with pleasing potential allies/employers. The last thing we would need is a justice in their ninth year casting a deciding vote in favor of corporations in a labor-law case because they've been offered a plush, multi-million-dollar job at a corporate think-tank after their retirement in a year.

Better to let them have the Supreme Court until they retire.

[Joe Fields]

11. They should be appointed until.......

They render a decision that is counter to our philosophy..

[Occam Bandage]

14. Why bother even having a Supreme Court then? nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Hold it. THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.

There is no method for appointing judges in any other way without a Constitutional amendment.

[Occam Bandage]

16. I assume the OP is suggesting an amendment. nt

[saltpoint]

17. I say if they can continue to command the top positions on Billboard's charts,

more power to 'em.

"Love Child" is my favorite.

[Dr. Strange]

23. Thank you, Ms. Ross.

:patriot:

[saltpoint]

25. Hey there, Dr. Strange. Haven't seen you in a while and it's

my loss.

Happy May!


:hi:

[Dr. Strange]

28. Happy May to you too.

Any plans to see the Wolverine movie?

[saltpoint]

32. I might go see the Wolverine movie, but my heart is with Thor. I think

they release the Thor movie in 2011. I'm willing to wait.

Here's what you do for that narwhal flu. You move to Ireland and commune with the land spirits. Celtic ghosts lift you with folk harmonies and early evening fog into deep, green, lost hills. You breathe far more easily than you can ever remember breathing, and only the good things remain vivid.

[Bake]

27. NARWHAL FLU!!! OMG!!!

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!

:hi:

Bake

[Dr. Strange]

29. Dude!

Get thee to the Lounge!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8735254#8735563

:toast:

[Jeep789]

18. Yikes, there is good reason they are appointed for life

It frees them from worrying about politics. If they had to worry about future appointments they would likely feel pressured to rule according to majority views as opposed to Constitutional principal.

[spanone]

19. i'll have to trust the founding fathers on this one

[Goblinmonger]

20. I going to stick with the arguments of Madison and Hamilton

on this one. They are a long-term memory of the government. Unlike the House that can turn over completely every two years, the president at 4, and the Senate with 6, a lifetime SCOTUS allows for some calming of tides that Madison was worried about (Federalist 10).

Term limits for SCOTUS would suck. You think it's cool now, but not when the other party is going to get to replace the guy you like on a rolling term.

[pipoman]

21. And you think the *

admins housecleaning of the Justice Dept. Prosecutors caused an uproar...

[jody]

22. Eighteen years staggered for a new one every two years. Also let the House approve the nominee and

require 3/4 of the House votes for approval just as 3/4 of the states are required to ratify an amendment to our Constitution.

IMO it's unfair for the 37 million citizens of California to have only two votes for a Supreme Court nominee and Wyoming's 500 thousand citizens to have the same number of votes as exists today with the Senate approval process.

[beyurslf]

24. Lifetime appts allow them to be independent. Of course, it also makes young choices

look like better choices. That's why we will have our current Chief Justice most of our lives now. I favor changing it to something like 25 year appointments. That way, even if is year 1 of the president's term (like it is now), the justice would be on the bench long after both of his terms as pres and both of the possible terms of the sitting vp. 25 years is a generation which is plenty long.

[Quantess]

26. Supremes?

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. definitely for life

.
.
.



Got MY vote

:dunce:

The Supremes

[SoCalDem]

33. I'd love to see a 15-person court..with 10 yr limits

Youngest age...60.

by then their family-raising obligations would mostly be done, and a 10 year term makes them 70 when it's up..


At 10 yrs, they would have an option to be RE-appointed, but only ro 5 yrs after the initial 10 yr term..

Maximum age ...75

With a 15-person court and 10 yr terms, there would be an automatic ebb and flow..