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.
My answer is to limit the top age to 75, excepting those presently serving. How’s that?
That would also work. Is there a minimum age or experience test to be appointed? I would hate to see a 30 year old go in because their nominating party felt the longevity was more desirable than experience.
That would also work. Is there a minimum age or experience test to be appointed? I would hate to see a 30 year old go in because their nominating party felt the longevity was more desirable than experience.
Presume current crop is grandfathered?
Yes, the minimum age should be 30. It’s 35 for president.
The concept is sound enough, but even if it survives long enough for the House to vote on it and send it to the Senate, the bill dies there. Whether or not it's of any real value, civics teachers and historians love to speak of the Supreme Court as this sacred ediface disconnected from elections and politics and the only lifelong position in US government.
The game has been the same since forever:
The president nominates.
The Senate confirms.
If you control both the Presidency and the Senate, you can fill any vacancy however you like (the 60 vote cloture used to require a modicum of good will from minority party, but those days are gone now.)
If you control only one of those two things, you're going to have to negotiate and compromise.
If you control neither, then you whine and cry and stomp your feet like a little baby. (Not being partisan here, they both do it and it's pathetic every single time we see it.)
When putting in a fairly partisan justice, make sure they're as young as possible so they'll be there for as long as possible.
What people who don't pay attention fail to realize is that the game extends to Supreme Court justices.
If your party controls both and you're getting older, now is the time to retire.
If your party controls one but not the other, it's not ideal but now is an acceptable time to retire.
If your party controls neither, then even if you've survived cancer three times and had five heart attacks, you're going to try to ride it out long enough because it's guaranteed that the opposition will flip your seat.
Scalia got caught trying to ride it out. So did Ginsberg. Neither of them quite made it. Scalia got luckier than Ginsberg and that's about it.
A set term limit might limit justices ability to time their retirements. Personally, I'd rather see an age limit instead of a term limit. The greater problem is that people who are too damn old are sticking around on the Supreme Court beyond the point of their mental and physical soundness. The idea of a time limit also has merit, but I think that the age and mental wellness questions are in far greater need of answering first.
The bigger reason I find the move distasteful: Whenever they're not getting their way, the Democrats set about trying to rewrite the rules of the game. The nuclear option blew up in their faces, but they seem to want to muck with the rules again anyways.
"The Senate confirms." OR REJECTS the nomination. I know details, details details.
If all they did was rubber stamp nominations, why even have al the Senate hearings on the nomination?
"(the 60 vote cloture used to require a modicum of good will from minority party, but those days are gone now.), and WHO got rid of that?
The life expectancy back when the Constitutions was written was only around 35 years. I don't think back then they expected judges, nor Congressman, to live so long. They didn't envision politicians nor judges making a life long living carrier out of it.
"about 35 years 17th-century English life expectancy was only about 35 years, largely because infant and child mortality remained high. Life expectancy was under 25 years in the early Colony of Virginia, and in seventeenth-century New England, about 40 percent died before reaching adulthood.
Actually...im normally opposed to these as most people think 4 or 8 year terms, but...I have to admit 18 would stop some of the issues the court has. While also not letting it be abusable so easily. I might call it 20 because I like round numbers, but sure 18 is fine too.
Hopefully it grandfathers in all the current judges. I think thats only fair. Doing otherwise would be a partisan attempt to change the balance of the court in response to some of the younger justices.
Ex Post Facto laws are forbidden. Any law passed cannot apply to current judges.
I would TOTALLY 100% support this, especially if it applies to all federal appointments. I suspect more Americans would support it than not. It is ridiculous we have people serving 40+ years, with essentially no way to get rid of them once it’s done. When the Constitution was originally written it was never anticipated that people would serve so long since the average life expectancy back then was early 50’s (34, if infant/early childhood included). It was expected that the maximum tenure would be 20-25 years.
However, they can write all the bills they want but it won’t work. Changing this will take a constitutional amendment, one of the fewI woukd support, which are extraordinarily hard to make happen.
"especially if it applies to all federal appointments." Most appointment are replaced when a new president takes office and gets rid of the old and put HIS people in their place.
Term Limits for House - 4 terms
Term Limits for Senate - 2 terms
Mandatory retirement age for all federal employees 80!
"Mandatory retirement age for all federal employees 80"
Is there a mandatory retirement age in the private sector?
I know many attorneys who still as sharp as a tack that are OVER 80.
As long as you can still do your job, I see NO reason to force retirement.
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.
