Supreme Court justices - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 02-04-2010, 01:53 PM

The rumor in the news this morning is that the White House is preparing for two more potential vacancies on the court next spring. This of course really chafes people like me, after watching George Bush only get two appointees in 8 years, and only one of them was after a retirement.

I read a proposal some time ago that would significantly depoliticize the selection of SCOTUS judges. Change the tenure from a lifetime appointment to 18 years, and rotate appointments every 2 years. One-term presidents get two, and two-term presidents get four, guaranteed.

No pressure to retire (or NOT to retire), and no rush to appoint young lawyers to the bench so they can stay there as long as possible. Historically, 18 years is a term that far exceeds any other politics ... the House, Senate, and Presidency are all likely to change parties at least once during that time.

It would be a much better system, and while it would not eliminate all SCOTUS politics, it would really reduce the acrimony. Thus, it will never happen.

Cali Coug · 02-04-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

The rumor in the news this morning is that the White House is preparing for two more potential vacancies on the court next spring. This of course really chafes people like me, after watching George Bush only get two appointees in 8 years, and only one of them was after a retirement.

I read a proposal some time ago that would significantly depoliticize the selection of SCOTUS judges. Change the tenure from a lifetime appointment to 18 years, and rotate appointments every 2 years. One-term presidents get two, and two-term presidents get four, guaranteed.

No pressure to retire (or NOT to retire), and no rush to appoint young lawyers to the bench so they can stay there as long as possible. Historically, 18 years is a term that far exceeds any other politics ... the House, Senate, and Presidency are all likely to change parties at least once during that time.

It would be a much better system, and while it would not eliminate all SCOTUS politics, it would really reduce the acrimony. Thus, it will never happen.

Not sure I understand how your proposal changes anything. Are you saying a justice couldn't retire before 18 years? What if he dies? Does the seat remain vacant? I am certain you can't require a person to keep a job if they don't want it, so do retired justice seats also stay vacant? That seems silly. If you are going to fill the vacancies, won't they still just time their retirements just as they all do now?

Going to 18 years doesn't seem to do a single thing to fix the problem you see.

Tex · 02-04-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not sure I understand how your proposal changes anything. Are you saying a justice couldn't retire before 18 years? What if he dies? Does the seat remain vacant? I am certain you can't require a person to keep a job if they don't want it, so do retired justice seats also stay vacant? That seems silly. If you are going to fill the vacancies, won't they still just time their retirements just as they all do now?

Going to 18 years doesn't seem to do a single thing to fix the problem you see.

No need to be so confrontational, Cali. This isn't a Republican-Democrat thing.

I don't recall the specifics of the proposal ... in the event of a premature vacancy, I think the suggestion was to simply backfill the remainder of the 18-year term, whatever that was. Given how long justices are wont to say in office these days, if they knew ahead of time they would be appointed for that term, my guess is that most would fill it. Here are the terms of a few "recent" justices:

Breyer: 16
Ginsburg: 17
Thomas: 19
Souter: 19
Kennedy: 22
Scalia: 24
O'Connor: 15
Stevens: 35
Rehnquist: 19
Powell: 15
Burger: 17
Marshall: 14

As you can see, the terms have elongated over the years. And with Alito, Roberts, and Sotomayor being so young, one can easily imagine them following the trend.

RedHeadGal · 02-04-2010, 04:08 PM

I agree, in general, that term limits would be good for federal judges. Not just justices. As I'm sure you know, such a change would be a change to the constitution, which is no small feat. But I like change.

As an aside: Even though life tenure is possible, it's not as cut and dried as it appears. There is an implicit minimum term requirement, which is connected to their retirement benefits. Federal judges have SWEET retirement benefits, but in order to get them they have to put in a certain amount of time (the "rule of 80"--years of service plus age must equal 80). What the means is that anyone working longer than that is working for free.

Tex · 02-04-2010, 04:21 PM

Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment, which makes it an extreme long shot. But it's a good idea.

I did some searching, and I think this is the article I originally read. They make a compelling case:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006539

MikeWaters · 02-04-2010, 06:20 PM

This is a sign that some liberals on the Supreme Court think that Obama will be one-and-done.

It's a sign of being scared.

ute4ever · 02-04-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is a sign that some liberals on the Supreme Court think that Obama will be one-and-done.

It's a sign of being scared.

Why retire this spring and not at the end of the 2012 season?

02-04-2010, 01:53 PM	#1
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Supreme Court justices The rumor in the news this morning is that the White House is preparing for two more potential vacancies on the court next spring. This of course really chafes people like me, after watching George Bush only get two appointees in 8 years, and only one of them was after a retirement. I read a proposal some time ago that would significantly depoliticize the selection of SCOTUS judges. Change the tenure from a lifetime appointment to 18 years, and rotate appointments every 2 years. One-term presidents get two, and two-term presidents get four, guaranteed. No pressure to retire (or NOT to retire), and no rush to appoint young lawyers to the bench so they can stay there as long as possible. Historically, 18 years is a term that far exceeds any other politics ... the House, Senate, and Presidency are all likely to change parties at least once during that time. It would be a much better system, and while it would not eliminate all SCOTUS politics, it would really reduce the acrimony. Thus, it will never happen. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

02-04-2010, 04:21 PM	#5
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment, which makes it an extreme long shot. But it's a good idea. I did some searching, and I think this is the article I originally read. They make a compelling case: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006539 __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

02-04-2010, 04:08 PM	#4
RedHeadGal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: DC Posts: 995	I agree, in general, that term limits would be good for federal judges. Not just justices. As I'm sure you know, such a change would be a change to the constitution, which is no small feat. But I like change. As an aside: Even though life tenure is possible, it's not as cut and dried as it appears. There is an implicit minimum term requirement, which is connected to their retirement benefits. Federal judges have SWEET retirement benefits, but in order to get them they have to put in a certain amount of time (the "rule of 80"--years of service plus age must equal 80). What the means is that anyone working longer than that is working for free.

02-04-2010, 06:20 PM	#6
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	This is a sign that some liberals on the Supreme Court think that Obama will be one-and-done. It's a sign of being scared.