Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the looming face-off between the White House and the Senate over his replacement have revived proposals that would limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices.
Legal scholars from both political parties renewed a call Tuesday to reconsider how much time justices spend on the high court. Many of them cited, with disapproval, a bruising and protracted clash building between President Obama and the GOP-controlled Senate over when and how to fill Scalia's vacancy.
"The point of life tenure is to keep justices insulated from politics," said George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr. "That didn't quite pan out."
For years now, lawyers have been floating proposals that future high-court justices spend no more than 18 years at a time on the Supreme Court bench. The plan would space out appointments, so presidents would make appointments every two years, supporters said. That would bring regular turnover and fresh thinking to the court — and align with the longer life spans of Americans since the nation's founding, they argue.
The country has now been handed a wild card in the upcoming elections with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans (naturally) want to wait to fill the vacancy until after the November elections (actually, until mid January of 2017 when the newly elected government takes power). The democrats (naturally) want to appoint a new justice as soon as possible. This would mean a protracted fight on the floor of Congress, distracting from both the electoral process and the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on some of the most important questions now facing us regarding the law of the land. Yet, should a "lame duck" president be allowed to make such an important decision? Shouldn't this matter be left to a new POTUS, recently elected by the majority of the voters? Both arguments have valid points. Is there anything we can do to avoid such "shoot-outs at the OK Corral" in the future?
I don't understand why SC justices are not elected for terms like members of the other branches of government.
From above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
"The point of life tenure is to keep justices insulated from politics," said George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr.
While the current system is far from perfect, electing them would be far, far worse. Judges shouldn't be elected period, because a judge should be impartial and not have to survive a popularity contest or have a trial tainted because someone associated with the case helped get the judge elected (campaign contribution? bribe? semantics.) And that's just at the local level.
The current nomination/approval process involving both of the other branches of government (executive nominates, legislative approves) is by far the best system.
The country has now been handed a wild card in the upcoming elections with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans (naturally) want to wait to fill the vacancy until after the November elections (actually, until mid January of 2017 when the newly elected government takes power). The democrats (naturally) want to appoint a new justice as soon as possible. This would mean a protracted fight on the floor of Congress, distracting from both the electoral process and the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on some of the most important questions now facing us regarding the law of the land. Yet, should a "lame duck" president be allowed to make such an important decision? Shouldn't this matter be left to a new POTUS, recently elected by the majority of the voters? Both arguments have valid points. Is there anything we can do to avoid such "shoot-outs at the OK Corral" in the future?
1) 'distracting from the electoral process'?
Why, because Senators and voters can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Please. The government need not grind to a halt every time there's an election within the next eight months.
2) 'distracting from the ability of the Supreme Court to rule'?
Praytell, how would limiting the terms of Justices avoid having the occasional unexpected vacancy due to death? Presidents, Senators, members of Congress - they all occasionally die in office and occasionally resign before their terms are up. And most Supremes step down rather than die on the bench - only 2 pf the last 24 high court vacancies have been due to death instead of resignation. Anyway, the USSC can still rule.
3) 'should a "lame duck" president be allowed to make such an important decision'?
Why not? Presidents are elected to make such decisions through the end of their term. I knew full well when I voted in 2012 that there were old Justices on the high court. And ask me this - if there's some opposition to having a President who was elected three years ago make a nomination, shouldn't there be even more opposition to providing oversight to a Senate, over a third of which will have been elected more than four years ago by the time January 20, 2017, rolls around? And then where does that 'logic' (to put it charitably') end?
The independent judiciary is vastly superior to the pandering-for-the-next-election judiciary. I despise seeing state and local judges on the ballot when I vote.
Nothing should be changed vis-a-vis the Supreme Court. It works fine enough as it is.
Elections have consequences. If people don't like those consequences, well, tough noogies - sometimes my guy wins and sometimes my guy doesn't. Same with your guy. That's how it goes.
Elections have consequences. If people don't like those consequences, well, tough noogies - sometimes my guy wins and sometimes my guy doesn't. Same with your guy. That's how it goes.
It seems like the Republicans had a good run. It was almost 26 years between Democratic nominations for the SCOTUS, during which time the Republicans had 10 nominations approved. In fact for almost 2 years there were no Justices nominated by Democratic presidents.
October 2, 1967 Thurgood Marshall Nominated by President LBJ ( October 1, 1991 retired)
10 straight Supreme Court nominations by Republican Presidents August 10, 1993 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Nominated by President William Clinton
So now over 22 years later there is a possibility that the Democratic nominees will have a majority of one person. Yet the Republicans are squealing like stuck pigs that President Obama is doing something illegal or immoral.
I would support a cap on a justice's tenure, but for reasons already cited I don't think they should be subject to re-election (or more accurately re-appointment) like the President and members of Congress are.
If the Justices were limited to an 18 year tenure, then had to "take a break", what are the chances they would ever get another 18 year appointment?
By the time a lawyer got enough trial experience to become a judge, and spent enough time as a judge to become considered for a Supreme Court seat, then spent 18 years on the SC, he/she would be quite old, and would want to sit back and relax for the rest of their life.
I have never been favorable towards life-time appointments. It is entirely too likely that we end up with doddering old pre-alzheimers people that can barely think well enough to dress themselves. Luckily, most of them retire before that happens!
Yes they should remain as they are now. It's worked so far so why mess with it?
Our current president won't get a pick as elections have consequences, it'll be up to the next president whoever he may be.
Should we continue life-time appointments to the Supreme Court?
Yes.
It allows a justice to rule more impartially w/o concerns over the political monkey business that would cloud decisions of partisan appointees. But it calls for very close scrutiny of appointees prior to allowing them to be seated. Occasionally we'll get a hyperpartisan true believer like Scalia who will see every issue as political and will rule exclusively in favor of his benefactors. We should learn from these poorly vetted approvals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No worries....
