mandatory retirement for supreme court judges

[Anonymous]

I hate to think that a bunch of old, sick and staled men/women are deciding important issues for us, forever. They seem to be getting more and more political anyway.

What does it take to set mandatory retirement age (70 years old?) for the judges?

[Anonymous]

Some of our best decisions have been written by justices over the age of 70. And while some judges hang on lOnger than I'd like they seem to leave before they are unable to do the job.

Beware of setting rules based on your political interests. A younger judiciary may give you more but take away more just as quickly.

[Anonymous]

?
Bunch of old geriatrics holding onto their paychecks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to think that a bunch of old, sick and staled men/women are deciding important issues for us, forever. They seem to be getting more and more political anyway.

What does it take to set mandatory retirement age (70 years old?) for the judges?

A constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to think that a bunch of old, sick and staled men/women are deciding important issues for us, forever. They seem to be getting more and more political anyway.

What does it take to set mandatory retirement age (70 years old?) for the judges?

Where have you been? Seriously, it is odd that you are addressing this as if it is a new thing. This is the way the framers drafted it. I personally think it works pretty well, but eh, maybe we should just chuck the constitution because you finally figured out that judges/justices have life tenure.

[Anonymous]

I'd be happy it they'd just stick to the ethical standards and recuse themselves accourding to long standing traditional standards
Yes I'm referring to Justice Thomas and his wife taking nearly a million dollars in fees from groups who are against any form of national health care for all citizens. Duhh I wonder how he's going to vote???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be happy it they'd just stick to the ethical standards and recuse themselves accourding to long standing traditional standards
Yes I'm referring to Justice Thomas and his wife taking nearly a million dollars in fees from groups who are against any form of national health care for all citizens. Duhh I wonder how he's going to vote???

That is why the supreme court needs the right kind of people to stand up for what is right
Plutocracy rules, money is your God. You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

I think we should have a fixed 18 year term. Having Presidents feel pressure to name a younger appointee, rather than the best, and having justiceste a replacement, or so there aren't multiple vacancies in one year, makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we should have a fixed 18 year term. Having Presidents feel pressure to name a younger appointee, rather than the best, and having justiceste a replacement, or so there aren't multiple vacancies in one year, makes no sense.

That is an interesting approach. I think you are right that it would be better to limit the ability to stuff the court with young justices for political advantage. I'd rather have that than a mandatory retirement age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should have a fixed 18 year term. Having Presidents feel pressure to name a younger appointee, rather than the best, and having justiceste a replacement, or so there aren't multiple vacancies in one year, makes no sense.

That is an interesting approach. I think you are right that it would be better to limit the ability to stuff the court with young justices for political advantage. I'd rather have that than a mandatory retirement age.

Perhaps with staggered terms starting in odd years so that each presidency would have one appointment late in its first year and one in the third, separated from elections. Also, how about letting the justices themselves elect the chief justice, maybe for three year terms.

What is your bet on the possibility of getting such an amendment through the Congress and the states. Would there be a rash of different ideas coming up and causing even more division than we have now? How would the transition be handled -- I would guess that the present justices cannot be forced to leave office to make way for a new one each two years. But assuming it passed in 2013 or 2014, the first appointment following could end in 2033, the next in 2035, etc. They would not be exactly eighteen years, but eventually it would stabilize; and it would suggest a time for the present justices to choose to retire.

Gosh it's fun rewriting the Constitution!

[Freeman]

I fail to see how any of the suggestions would actually help the problem of political affiliation. By increasing the frequency of appointments, you make the position more politically dependent than now. As for the "being out of touch" argument, the pool of applicants would remain largely the same, generally pulling from the federal appeals courts, so that charge would likely remain the same as well. Traditionally, there have often been calls for changes to the supreme court, such as the term limits listed here. Once whatever present turmoil is triggering it blows over, it tends to die down. I think what people should keep in mind is that the same court structure used today has served us well for over 200 years. In the past, the justices were much more politically affiliated than they are today.(Just read up on how many of them were appointed.) The justices generally came from the ranks of the current party, governors, senators, and their appointment often came from backroom deals among the power brokers of the time.(Some of the most famous court justices received their appointments in this manner) The problems being expressed are nothing new, and they've never prevented the court from fulfilling its primary mission. You may disagree with some of the decisions of particular justices, but that doesn't mean the entire structure needs to be changed.

[Anonymous]

Freeman wrote:I fail to see how any of the suggestions would actually help the problem of political affiliation. By increasing the frequency of appointments, you make the position more politically dependent than now. As for the "being out of touch" argument, the pool of applicants would remain largely the same, generally pulling from the federal appeals courts, so that charge would likely remain the same as well. Traditionally, there have often been calls for changes to the supreme court, such as the term limits listed here. Once whatever present turmoil is triggering it blows over, it tends to die down. I think what people should keep in mind is that the same court structure used today has served us well for over 200 years. In the past, the justices were much more politically affiliated than they are today.(Just read up on how many of them were appointed.) The justices generally came from the ranks of the current party, governors, senators, and their appointment often came from backroom deals among the power brokers of the time.(Some of the most famous court justices received their appointments in this manner) The problems being expressed are nothing new, and they've never prevented the court from fulfilling its primary mission. You may disagree with some of the decisions of particular justices, but that doesn't mean the entire structure needs to be changed.

The average tenure of a supreme court justice from 1789-1970 was less than 15 years, and for justices retiring since then it has been over 26 years, and I think that is only going to get worse with younger nominees (and better healthcare).

It used to be that there were vacancies every couple of years, but now some presidents may get 2 and some get none. I don't see why guaranteeing every president 2 appointments (by staggering 18 year appointments every 2 years) would make the position more politically dependent.