Loki Loc: Georgia

This article I read got me thinking that I have a real crap-stirring winner here. Supreme Court fights in the Senate. My own opinion is that much of it would end if we finally got term limits for the entire Federal Judiciary not just the SCOTUS. The actual how of accomplishing this is not the purpose of this thread; My interest is in getting your opinion: Does the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government need term limits, should they be required to stand for re-election, what do you think and why? Let's try and keep this one civil for a while before we have our usual food fight.

Here is the article that got me started...

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2017/02/03/why-supreme-court-nominations-prompt-scorchedearth-warfare-n2280422?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=em

Kachina

I think every branch of government, other than military, should have term limits or in the judicial system, they should be re-elected.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

A strong supporter clear across the spectrum to all civil servants of government yes, term limits are a must..
I also don't mean those limits as imposed by voting in and out...

Trump campaigned for term limits but just for Congress.. I believe it should apply to all..Of course that sorry McConnell came back dismissing it saying that wouldn't be on the table right now.. BS, why not?? Don't want to loose that cushy little job, eh??

The lifers of the Supreme Court was originally done along the lines of maintaining consistentancy in principal law along with the mentality that brought them to their conclusions.. It is the one main reason they nearly never change their rulings.. Only 10 times since the enactment of the Supreme Court have they modified the original ruling.. In those it was to add based on progression of law, and only modified to include whatever it was that needed "update" so to speak...

As for the rest of the bodies of government term limits would:

Reduce the criminal element of pay for results of the special interest groups who would have to start over with each new representative..

Keep new blood in the game with innovative thinkers, not those who look to maintain status quo...

Keep diversity of issues as needed in the progression of our country...

Eliminate that all or none class of elitism if they were limited to say 6 years, period..

Loki Loc: Georgia

Thank you, but the question was term limits. That means should there be a limit on the amount of time they can serve, period?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Good point. Bear in mind that when the Supreme Court was first established, there was no 17th Amendment regarding the election of Senators by popular vote rather than state legislatures. There was a time when there was no such thing as a Senator who made a career of it. No state legislature would have stood still for it. Now we have an imperial Senate voting on an imperial SCOTUS.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Yes, Supreme Court Justices should have term limits, with a couple of thoughts as to why:

The main reason is that a lifetime appointment sets an agenda that can polarize the courts real purpose: interpreting the constitution.

....which in effect, reduces the chances or opportunities to change the constitution. There are those who believe that changes should be made since the founders agree that we are allowed to change or modify, to reflect changes in our society. Why do we have to interpret? Because the crucible that forged the Constitution couldn't have anticipated changes. It seems to me, today, states rights are being crushed by supreme court decisions that they are neither required or desired to decide for a state.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Term limits on all Federal positions seems on the surface to be a good idea and I have advocated for that in the past. Further reflection indicates that the Supreme Court's function is not one which would benefit from term limits other than an age cut off. The insight and vision needed to interpret the constitution is developed over a long career and is not common. Dumping the Judges every four or six years would exhaust the supply of truly qualified Judges in a short time

The position at present demands a solid background in case law pertaining to the constitution and this should be disclosed in the vetting process. Ideally, the vetting process would eliminate those candidates who have made decisions that were unconstitutional. Elections of SC judges would turn the court into the same kind of circus we see in the Congressional and Presidential elections. It would almost certainly result in unqualified candidates becoming judges and with our current demographics, liberal progressives would dominate the court forever and the constitution would be reduced to toilet paper.

There is a quandary here, life appointments result in Sotomayors and Ginsburgs who trample the Constitution under their social viewpoint. Something has to be done to gain relief from bad decisions rendered based on whatever is the cause du jour. The current vetting situation is too political, eminently qualified candidates are rejected and the candidate selected has constitutionally bad spots on his record. This may be a compromise but the court has to be the interpreter of the constitution. If their decisions are made on any other basis, they are making law not decisions. It is apparent that the current congressional advise and assent has degenerated into he's yours, we dissent. This will never be corrected in the Congress.

Accordingly, I would propose a referendum situation, in which Supreme court Judges can be recalled based on the will of the people. Use the republic method of voting for recall. There would not have to be an impeachment process since that generally involves some criminality. I would also provide the judges with a fixed term of eight years after which they would stand for a vote of confidence. If they lose, they are out and if they win they would continue for a second term, with a maximum age cap. Increasing age often brings mental infirmities and these are usually covered up in public figures.

There would be no competition for judge position, just a vote of affirmation. The selection and vetting process would essentially remain the same with some modifications and the continuity of the legal system would be preserved. When a judge loses, the same process used to install the judge will select a new qualified person.

On further reflection, why not implement the recall function as well as term limits for all Federal positions; the Supreme Court limits would be as defined above.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Exactly why term limits are a necessity...
Widespread distaste for careerism in politics, as well as a conviction that continual infusion of fresh blood, may ulter the criminally of what is anymore..

Given the very low unfavorable Congress this would or may help to change the perception of our elected as well, but do think it should apply to Senate as well..

Do you know term limits were in force back when the Roman's controlled??.. One year terms, with re~votes required for new members and after that 10 years before the person could try again..


I think it was Jefferson, who advised the need of limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation".....

Likewise I know legislation has been proffered, but never makes it to even the floor for consideration...Don't want to vote themselves out....

Additionally I am aware of two separate Article V in the making for Term limits as well...Which in my opinion is the only way it's going to happen..That requires a 34 state majority....

Twenty-three states had passed term limits on their congressional delegations by 1995, many while simultaneously term-limiting state lawmakers.

Voters in most other states lack statewide initiative rights. But if the term limits passed by the 23 had been left alone, the pressure would have been enormous to bring term limits to the whole Congress.... Yes, you know who fought it.. I also remember reading of someone putting forth another bill in 2014, but I haven't read anything more on it... perhaps it too is drawing dust on whoever has it!!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Pafret, I like your suggestion very much, which in effect would be a qualified term limits requiring a referendum by the people..

Recall, while I would support it represents a commendable movement to make Congress more accountable for its actions, however it tramples the U.S. Constitution and undermines the rule of law....Or so determined in years past...

Contrary to popular snd different Web sites, the recall of members of the U.S. Congress has never been permissible according to the Constitution, and no member of the Congress has ever been removed by such means. That’s because the U.S. Constitution sets the qualifications and terms for being a member of the House or Senate; changing those qualifications or terms (as in making them subject to a recall) is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment.

"Recall is not a new idea. At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers considered and rejected a national recall provision....Recall was raised again as an amendment in New York, but the 1788 ratifying convention defeated it. Why? Because the Constitutional structure held senators accountable. Originally, senators were elected by the state legislatures and were responsible to their state for their actions... (Loki touched on this earlier) At the same time, the Framers wanted to bring deliberation to the national legislature and sought to protect lawmaking from the "whim of passion and majority faction". If legislators are constantly under the threat of instant recall, they will never be sure of their step, for fear of some impulse of the moment"...So the Constitution creates a bicameral legislature, with the House subject to the changing sentiments of opinion, and the Senate, with its longer terms, bringing stability and deliberation, or so it is thought...

Now remember the Constitution does contains an expulsion clause for members of Congress, though it has widely been neglected since the Civil War cases of disloyalty.....

An amendment to return recall is not impossible, but just like the term limits threat, do we believe the ones we look to impose recall on would vote our right to do so???

PeterS

How about the oldest is replace every 5 years with a minority candidate thereby leaving no ideology dominate for any length of time--if there is a death replace them with the ideology of the dead justice. This would also prevent a three branch monopoly for any length of time...

I have no problem with justices being appointed.

Kachina

And that is what i responded too. I said there should be term limits in every branch of goverment. Read the answer before you say i did not answer or understand the question.

pafret Loc: Northeast

None of the needed reforms are likely to ever come to fruition by our career ruling class. This is evidenced by the many examples of nepotism and the assumption that relatives of current pols are automatically more qualified to hold high public office than anyone else.

Accordingly, there is an organization attempting to force Constitutional change called the Article Five Convention of States.

Article V reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states . . .

They have held practice conventions while working toward getting a State by State Resolution to hold an Article five convention. This is their current count

Progress Update: Here are all the latest numbers:

Total Passed States: 8
Total House Wins: 18
Total Senate Wins: 11
Total States with Committee Wins: 24
Total States that have filed the COS Resolution: 44

The amendments proposed thus far:

1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Imposing term limits on Congress (effective retroactively)
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by allowing an easy congressional override
5. Requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, which
legalized the federal income tax
6. Giving the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation,
or executive order

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440506/constitutional-amendments-states-convention

This I believe, is the only way that the needed changes will be effected. This group needs to be watched because if it is taken over by the wrong agendas they can cause some real mischief.

pafret Loc: Northeast

The last thing we need are race and agenda based judicial decisions. We already have that, inadvertently, and this is the reason to seek term limits; you would embody the exact problem we are trying to cure. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in ruling on any case presented and there is no need for a special flavor of the month to replace the Justices. You are proposing racial quotas on the Judicial system and this is anti-American and unconstitutional.

PeterS

Where am I suggesting racial quotas? Did you read what I wrote? Our nation and judicial system is split along ideology. Term limits won't do anything to change that--whether a judiciary is elected or appointed it is still going to be along perceived ideological beliefs. The method I suggest no ideology will hold a long term monopoly but will alternate every five years. That also means that no president can pack the court for any period of time. If there is anything anti-american or unconstitutional in that I fail to see it.

Loki Loc: Georgia

My own view is that a limit of ten years would be about right. Supreme Court Justices are picked by the party in power. It is currently a lifetime appointment. You can wreak a lot of havoc in a lifetime. Add to that career Senators and you have a recipe for disaster. If a SCOTUS nominee's previous activities do not fall into line ideologically with those of the party in power, then it does not matter how honest or qualified they are, they will never be confimed. Political views, rather than judicial ability has become the dominating factor in confirmation. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an activist from hell. Kagan and Sotomayor are not a lot better.
I think that the SCOTUS should be refreshed every ten years or so.