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.

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.

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, 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???

Viewing the criminal activity which has been rampant in the Congress, they find it difficult to censure members via the ethics committee and expulsion is absolutely unthinkable. The Convention of States has to add repeal of the seventeenth amendment and return Senatorial appointments to the State.

As far as Supreme Court Judges go, in no way should they ever stand for election. The Congress is bought and paid for. None of their decisions is ever what it seems to be but is at the behest of their owners. The Supremes are the only leg of government that is theoretically free of encumbrances that will sway judgement. Running for office costs and the suppliers of the funds have a lien on the incumbent.

There needs to be some method for the nation as a whole to rid themselves of representatives who are narrow factionalist representatives instead of all of the people. Consider Harry Reid, his tenure was enhanced by gerrymandering his home district boundaries to include most of his relatives and close supporters. He was not representative of Nevada certainly not a Senator of the nation. A partisan hack who rose to power because of longevity.

Loki advocates ten years for a SCOTUS appointment but I still think there should be some way to keep the good ones. A Scalia or Frankfurter shouldn't be discarded. I still like two shorter terms with the second being subject to a national election. No competition, just Yea or Nay for a second term.


"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". I am not so sure that this is a bad thing, I would like them to be afraid, very afraid.

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

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..

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.

Viewing the criminal activity which has been rampant in the Congress, they find it difficult to censure members via the ethics committee and expulsion is absolutely unthinkable. The Convention of States has to add repeal of the seventeenth amendment and return Senatorial appointments to the State.

As far as Supreme Court Judges go, in no way should they ever stand for election. The Congress is bought and paid for. None of their decisions is ever what it seems to be but is at the behest of their owners. The Supremes are the only leg of government that is theoretically free of encumbrances that will sway judgement. Running for office costs and the suppliers of the funds have a lien on the incumbent.

There needs to be some method for the nation as a whole to rid themselves of representatives who are narrow factionalist representatives instead of all of the people. Consider Harry Reid, his tenure was enhanced by gerrymandering his home district boundaries to include most of his relatives and close supporters. He was not representative of Nevada certainly not a Senator of the nation. A partisan hack who rose to power because of longevity.

Loki advocates ten years for a SCOTUS appointment but I still think there should be some way to keep the good ones. A Scalia or Frankfurter shouldn't be discarded. I still like two shorter terms with the second being subject to a national election. No competition, just Yea or Nay for a second term.


"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". I am not so sure that this is a bad thing, I would like them to be afraid, very afraid.