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.
Now if someone wanted to make a maximum age argument, that I could buy. Say...70? But with all current justices grandfathered in.
I would say instead of making it a maximum age requirement, that there should be at least a yearly mental competency requirement, if you are still sharp at 80 then Ok to serve on the bench. if not then time to retire with honor.
I voted yes, although this is a tough call, and I could be persuaded I'm wrong. The court is now a completely partisan body, as shown by all the 5-4 votes (and the close confirmation votes). It didn't use to be this way, but it is now. RBG was confirmed 96-3. She was known to be well left, but also was known to be a qualified jurist.
I think once a body becomes clearly partisan, you have to have term limits to allow for partisan changes in the electorate.
I would note that Roberts has not exactly won the hearts of many conservatives since he has been there and Kavanaugh voted against the three Conservatives right out of the gate. Sandra Day O'connor , David Souter not exactly Conservative favorites appointed by Reagan and Bush41 respectively.
There is enough politics involved with the nominations, you want to double down on that? If you are electing them they are necessarily a politician. In the current system once they become a Justice they are free of politics, getting reelected is not a consideration.
I don't think we need term limits but clearly age limits should be considered, 75 to 80 sounds about right.
I would say instead of making it a maximum age requirement, that there should be at least a yearly mental competency requirement, if you are still sharp at 80 then Ok to serve on the bench. if not then time to retire with honor.
I'm not saying I disagree completely but who designs, administers, and interprets the results of this test?
That person(s) has a great deal of power, no?
This is just a continuing tantrum because people are not getting their way.
No one whined when Obama put in his people.
Here's the original reason for their length of terms. Feel free to supply an intelligent argument.
The point of giving justices a seat on the bench for the rest of their lives (or, more commonly nowadays, until they decide to retire) is to shield the nation’s highest court from the kind of partisan fighting the Chase impeachment exemplified. The Supreme Court acts as a check against the power of Congress and the president. The lifetime appointment is designed to ensure that the justices are insulated from political pressure and that the court can serve as a truly independent branch of government.
Justices can’t be fired if they make unpopular decisions, in theory allowing them to focus on the law rather than politics. Justices might be nominated because a president sees them as a political or ideological ally, but once they’re on the bench, they can’t be recalled, even if their ideology shifts. Some data, for instance, suggests that many justices actually drift leftward as they age, no doubt infuriating the conservative presidents that appointed them.
The lack of term limits “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,†Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 78. The judiciary, he believed, “is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its coordinate branches,†and “nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office.†Without lifetime job security, he argued, judges might feel obligated to bow to the wishes of the president, Congress, or the public, rather than confining their work strictly to questions of the Constitution.
I would say instead of making it a maximum age requirement, that there should be at least a yearly mental competency requirement, if you are still sharp at 80 then Ok to serve on the bench. if not then time to retire with honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBaldBlur
I'm not saying I disagree completely but who designs, administers, and interprets the results of this test?
That person(s) has a great deal of power, no?
/rhetorical
Basic to comprehensive IQ tests, and since we are talking about the Supreme Court, an excellent understanding of the Constitution of the United States, and how the constitution applies to the current cases that are to be brought to the Supreme Court. Or at least how the constitution applied to previous cases that have already been decided.
By the way, although I suspect that most people will reply in terms of RBG, I believe that the longest-servicing Justice is Clarence Thomas.
Maybe on the current Court but but the longest serving historically was William O. Douglass at over thirty five years. Fourth was John Paul Stevens at just under thirty five.
I would say instead of making it a maximum age requirement, that there should be at least a yearly mental competency requirement, if you are still sharp at 80 then Ok to serve on the bench. if not then time to retire with honor.
My Grandmother's mental capacity at the age of one hundred is going to far more than others her age. The doctor gave her four words to remember and she is competent enough that her first thought is he's trying to find out if I'm nuts. The thing is she is no where near what she was 10 years ago let alone 30 or 40 years ago. You may still be competent at the age of 80 but it may be far less than what you were at the age of 70.
These people are nominated because they have extraordinary minds, they may be the equal of many lawyers at the age of 80 but this isn't a job for the average lawyer.
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.
The thing is she is no where near what she was 10 years ago let alone 30 or 40 years ago. You may still be competent at the age of 80 but it may be far less than what you were at the age of 70. 
