Should Supreme Court Justices REALLY Have Lifetime Appointments?

[DistressedAmerican]

I understand the reasoning. It removes them from possible pressure from the other branches. That is needed.

However, I hate the idea of lifetime appointments for ANY job. I am a professor and I oppose tenure for profs. It does not serve the students well to have a prof that can never be fired.

I think the same holds at the Supreme Court Level. It does not serve the nation well to have extremely an old and out of touch judiciary deciding what the constitution means.

I would propose some set timeframe that a justice holds the post. Maybe 20 years. It would not undercut the autonomy of the branch as they still can not be fired.

Thoughts?

[forgethell]

1. Twelve years

would be better. And can be re-appointed for, say 8, indefinitely. I like that idea.

[mike_c]

OT, but your statement about tenure rankles....

I'm a prof too-- a tenured prof-- and I can certainly be fired. Tenure does not protect me from dismissal for cause, including ineffective teaching, at least under my contract. What it protects me from is arbitrary dismissal, and in particular from dismissal because my dean or other university administrators disagree with my politics, my religious beliefs, or my social views. It protects my academic freedom to do the best job I can, without interference.

OK, maybe not so OT, because the rational for life-time judicial appointments is similar. With a life-time appt, judges are free to focus on their understanding of the law, without concern for shifting social perspectives. That's the way it should be, IMO. That makes it especially important to focus on the selection and confirmation process, since that's where we can screen individuals who might abuse that authority.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. I Understand Why Tenure Exists. And Not Being Able To Be Fired

at all was an exaggeration. However, as a pro, I'm sure you have seen your share of the worst case scenario. A prof gets tenure, stops publishing, and bides him time until retirement.

In my institution there have been a number of scandals resulting from things like tenured profs sleeping with grad students. The worst such case involves just that type of prof. Did good work until he got tenure and now he does next to nothing but, sleep with his students. Where I am that is not considered "cause". He got a talking to (both times).

As for the selection and confirmation process, I have no faith in the process. Politicians are not looking at the person's qualifications. One side pushes to tank the nominee and the other pushed to get them in. It is purely political and therefor not some idealized quest for the best person for the job.

Besides they confirm pigs like Scalia. He could be the poster child for politically motivated nominations!

[Warpy]

2. It's served us remarkably well in the past

because judges with lifetime appointments were relieved from any pressure party politics could have on them.

However, in the past, back before the increase in medical technology, justices didn't stay on the bench for decades. They were lucky to stay there for more than 5 years. Also, only the oldest, most experienced judges were nominated. The GOP changed that with Rehnquist, nominating fairly young men, knowing they'd poison the bench for many years.

Young men always think the older people are out of touch, not realizing that those older folks have already trod the road they're still exploring.

I'd say the main problem with the bench now is the fact that the GOP has been appointing too many young and relatively inexperienced men to the job. Had they concentrated on men and women with the maximum amount of experience, we'd have a far different bench than that shaped by young Turks and ideologues. Of course, older judges would have had a much more detailed paper trail, and that might have made them easier to defeat, which is also part of the GOP strategy. Younger men are more of an unknown quantity.

The GOP has not given us the best, the brightest, and the most experienced. That's the problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. I would be very interested in seeing some numbers on the

average aga at appointment during the 19th century compared with the same in the 20th century. Also, average length of tenure on the court in the 19th vs 20th centuries.

I would give good odds that you are right.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. There's a lot to be said for that, but...

we're only looking at this time frame when everything is going to hell. Lifetime appointments also mean that there's no "strategizing" for the imminent required retirement of key justices.

While looking at the great idea of getting rid of some conservative justices, don't forget that liberal ones will be forced out, too. And if they were forced out during Shrub's, or another equally vacuous rightwing, term, just who would replace them?

No one is completely happy with the way things are now, but I suspect we'd all end up completely miserable with that change.

Now, term limits for appeals court justices... that's got a good ring to it. That's where most of the law is really made.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. The straategizing goes on now. Sometimes to the level of justices

timing their departure on which party will get to nominate a replacement. I'm not sure that is any better.

As far as the balance on the court. Such a change would hot really impact that. I do think both liberals and conservatives should have limits. As long as everyone had the same rules for departure, I don't see how it would change the ideological makeup.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. I'm not sure either, but...

the possibilities are endless. I just have a gut feeling that it's a solution to a small or nonexistent problem.

At any rate, it would seem to need a Constitutional amendment, and that ain't easy to get.

[Jacobin]

5. Do you really think we would have Brown v. Board of Education

without lifetime appointments?

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Why Wouldn't We? Please Explain...

[Jacobin]

12. In the 1950's

The idea that blacks and whites had to attend school together was, shall we say, somewhat unpopular....

This decision was wildly unpopular among a large majority of Murkins, yet it was the correct decision. At the time, blacks couldn't stay in most hotels, couldn't eat in most restaurants, voting was a figment of the imagination, etc.

If SCOTUS judges had short terms, I seriously doubt that they would have accepted writs, much less ruled against the 'separate but equal' line of cases.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. I Really Don't Think Of 20 Year Terms As Significantly Limiting.

I am not talking about "short terms". That is a whole career in some professions. Plenty of time to deal with the issues of the day.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Yes.

Earl Warren was Republican, but I don't believe his views on civil rights would have been dampered by the possibility of losing a seat on a court bench.
Men with values and conviction don't bow to that pressure. They do what is right.
That is what is wrong with our country today. We have no great men serving it. It's all about politics and toeing the party line.
If Earl Warren were sitting on the bench today, he would be considered an activist judge and have a big target on his forehead, even though he was justifiably one of the best that ever sat on the bench.

[Jacobin]

13. He WAS considered an acitivist judge back then

There were billboards along the highways when I was growing up urging the impeachment of Earl Warren.

[Horse with no Name]

14. I don't remember those days

because of my age. However, Brown v. Board was a unanimous SC decision.
Were all of the justices branded activist or just him?

[CBGLuthier]

6. But they can be fired

They can be impeached for the same reasons any other high office holder can.

I see no reason to tinker with these aspects of the SC. The wisest jurists have stepped down when they felt they were too old to do the job.

And for the record a bunch of extremely old men were able to make some damn fine decisions in the past. Don't judge all the SC by the current crop which includes a few real losers.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. So then you wouldn't mind forced retirement of these judicial heroes:

William O. Douglas
Thurgood Marshall
William Brennan
Benjamin Cardozo
Hugo Black
just to name a few outstanding jurists.

in order to 86:
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
William Rehnquist
and their ilk or worse.

Better to maintain the status quo and keep the justices tenured.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. They All Leave Eventually! What Difference Does It Make?

I really do not understand how such a change would change the balance of good/bad justices.

I am not saying that the rules should change to get rid of the bad ones. I just think we would be better serves to get some new blood infused regularly.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. Early Evening Kicker

[Swamp Rat]

19. Professors+Tenure=Yes

Supreme Court Judges+Tenure=Fuck NO!