Current Events > Term limits on supreme justices is an idea I can get behind

(+) Yeah! (+)

The whole purpose of giving them life terms is because they're supposed to be impartial and above politics, but clearly that isn't working out. The SCOTUS is disgustingly political. The secondary purpose is so they can't be overthrown if they decide against the whims of the current administration, which is easy enough to solve. Once they're appointed that's it, they serve their term so long as retaining "good behavior" as the rule is now. I think 10 years is a good span. I think they also shouldn't be over a certain age for mental breakdown reasons.
---

If such a policy was enacted, it would need to be a lifetime limit. Otherwise, the problem of "support this and we'll nominate you again" arises.
---

DarkTransient posted...

If such a policy was enacted, it would need to be a lifetime limit. Otherwise, the problem of "support this and we'll nominate you again" arises.

Totally
---

Eh, I disagree. I find there to be value in the judiciary as a stabilizing force resistant to whimsy.
---

I'd rather we just cut the bullshit and make some sort of AI, like in Deus Ex.
---

A better solution would be for the president to have the power to remove justices with an executive order.

I might seem like heresy today, but once Ginsburg retires, Trump can order the removal ofBreyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. His order will be challenged, and the Supreme Court will have to hear it. Of course, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will be forced to recuse themselves from the case since it is about them.

The court will obviously vote 6-0 to confirm Trump's authority to remove justices at will.

The court will then have 9 conservative judges.

Then, once a democrat president gets elected, he will try to remove the conservative judges with the same executive power. This time, the supreme court justices will refuse to recuse themselves and will overturn their previous precedent and say that presidents can't remove judges.

Just watch.
---

DarkTransient posted...

If such a policy was enacted, it would need to be a lifetime limit. Otherwise, the problem of "support this and we'll nominate you again" arises.

But were going to nominate people who will help us get our policy in is even worse. Theyre supposed to be an impartial group of judges who dictate the constitution. Their own personal politics shouldnt come into play.
---

frozenshock posted...

A better solution would be for the president to have the power to remove justices with an executive order.

That's a big reason WHY they have lifetime terms, so administrations can't do that shit. Why would you think that's a good idea?
---

frozenshock posted...

A better solution would be for the president to have the power to remove justices with an executive order.

I might seem like heresy today, but once Ginsburg retires, Trump can order the removal ofBreyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. His order will be challenged, and the Supreme Court will have to hear it. Of course, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will be forced to recuse themselves from the case since it is about them.

The court will obviously vote 6-0 to confirm Trump's authority to remove justices at will.

The court will then have 9 conservative judges.

Then, once a democrat president gets elected, he will try to remove the conservative judges with the same executive power. This time, the supreme court justices will refuse to recuse themselves and will overturn their previous precedent and say that presidents can't remove judges.

Just watch.

Actually, what he should do is push for congress to pass legislation to help the older Justices, by allowing the President to appoint a new Justice whenever one turns 70 and refuses to retire. There will also be a limit of 15 justices.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

That's a big reason WHY they have lifetime terms, so administrations can't do that shit. Why would you think that's a good idea?

I'm half kidding. But nothing is going to surprise me anymore.

Last year Trump actually tweeted for Ginsburg to resign.
---

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.
---

frozenshock posted...

Last year Trump actually tweeted for Ginsburg to resign.

She's 85 fucking years old, she should have years ago.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?

Tropicalwood isn't known for his intellectual capability, just complaining about false flags and librulz

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?

They're glorified interns
---

Tropicalwood posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?

They're glorified interns

And universally used on both sides of the bench. Fun fact: the law clerks for the justices (this is across the board) do the majority of opinion writing while the justices direct the clerks' writing and argument.
---

I bet as soon as they make a decision that you agree with, you will say the Supreme Court is fine.
---

Ginsburg isn't retiring until the grim reaper comes calling. That should be obvious.
I think Breyer is most likely to retire next. And probably during Trump's term too.
---

BWLurker2 posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?

Tropicalwood isn't known for his intellectual capability, just complaining about false flags and librulz

Why does this rookie user know everyone on this board?
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

A lot of people have asked for her to resign, even democrats during the Obama admin. All partisan bullshit aside, she's wasting tax payer money by hiring law students to help with her duties and almost every time we've seen a public appearance she's asleep.

...Do you not know what law clerks are?

They're glorified interns

And universally used on both sides of the bench. Fun fact: the law clerks for the justices (this is across the board) do the majority of opinion writing while the justices direct the clerks' writing and argument.

True, but she specifically wants more because she can't do her job anymore, being that she's had cancer multiple times and is 85.
---

No more than 100 years

Liberals love this NOW, but when it inevitably gets used against tyem, they'll claim tye system is rigged.

Good luck implementing the Constitutional Amendment requred, too.
---

frozenshock posted...

A better solution would be for the president to have the power to remove justices with an executive order.

That would be a horrible idea

It would basically destroy the concept of checks and balances
---

frozenshock posted...

A better solution would be for the president to have the power to remove justices with an executive order.

I might seem like heresy today, but once Ginsburg retires, Trump can order the removal ofBreyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. His order will be challenged, and the Supreme Court will have to hear it. Of course, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will be forced to recuse themselves from the case since it is about them.

The court will obviously vote 6-0 to confirm Trump's authority to remove justices at will.

The court will then have 9 conservative judges.

Then, once a democrat president gets elected, he will try to remove the conservative judges with the same executive power. This time, the supreme court justices will refuse to recuse themselves and will overturn their previous precedent and say that presidents can't remove judges.

Just watch.

The conservative judges in the the second case would then need to provide justification as to why it was okay for Trump to do it, but not for new president, and if they can't do that, they won't be able to prevent removing justices for not agreeing with the current president until a sitting president decides to go crazy with the ability.

10 years at most
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

It would basically destroy the concept of checks and balances

kinda like this?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html
---