Should judicial appointments be limited to, say, 20 years?

[AP]

I'm starting to get the impression that life terms for judicial office are undemocratic.

I think they do two things:

(1) They encourage Republicans to do extremely nefarious things to be in a position enabling them to make appointments, and

(2) they limit social progress by putting people in policy-molding positions for a period of time that is so long that a person with a 1970s view of how the world work can prevent 21st century America from evolving politically.

If you had a term limited to 20 years, you'd allow the judiciary to cycle so that you could have more opportunities to make sure judges are on the bench whose views of the world reflect contemporary attitudes towards policy. You'd also remove the incentive for, for example, appointing people like Clarence Thomas -- a young, very right wing radical -- to the bench so that he could hold back progress for 40 or 50 years.

Of course, a politician could still renew the appointment for a second term, if he or she chose to do so.

Perhaps, the way to do it is to have justices appointed for a term of not less than 20 years and no more than 25 years so that a judge would have to, in that 5 year period, chose a time to expose him or herself to renewal (or non-renewal) of the appointment. That way, there's a chance that your party will have control of the executive within that five year period, but the executive still has a chance to appoint someone else. (And perhaps the renewal appointment wouldn't be subject to the advice and consent of the legislature, but a new appointment would be).

[bluestateguy]

1. Maybe

A long term limit might not be so bad, and the judge could be reappointed but would have to stand before the people's representatives in Senate to answer for their record.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. I say 18 year terms

18 because of the Supreme Court. A new justice is appointed every two years.

[AP]

3. I like the idea that justices can hold out and not expose

themselves to losing their appointment if they don't happen to like the person who's president at the moment (but that they'd have to expose themselves to the next president). But, perhaps, that's also undemocratic. I guess I'm just advocating an incremental change, and going from life appointments to allowing every president two supreme court appointments is too big a change, but probably the right kind of change.

[lcordero]

4. I think that it should be reduced all the way down to 4 to 5 years

Our social system has fallen way behind the social systems of other industrialized countries(Canada, Scandinavia, Sweden, Germany, etc.) and I certainly don't feel that the relics currently occupying the Supreme Court are of any help.

[AP]

5. If it's too short, judges might ignore law and do what

they need to do to get reappointed.

It's a balancing act between judicial independance and democracy.

[Aaron]

6. No term limits for S. Court nominees

Here's why:

The reason, as I understand it, for making term limits would be to push Justices to make decisions that better reflect contemporary leftist ideals. But there are already multiple methods AFAIK to force a to change its rulings - and if you have the backing to create term-limits you should, arguably, have enough support to accomplish at least one of these methods that follow.

First you can do as FDR was going to do and pack the court with people who support your interpretation of the Constitution/situation/issue etc. This is because the number of S. Court justices is not set in the Constitution. So while it may run 5-4 now, it could be changed to 5-7 or something like that with a few appointments.

Next you can impeach justices. If one of them is corrupt, or many of them are corrupt (say for instance 5 that happen to appoint a president), or otherwise unfit for the bench, they can be impeached. So if the court is sitting at a 5-4 break and you impeach two justices now it is sitting 3-4. So the minority becomes the majority. IIRC, this is fairly similar to a standard presidential impeachment.

Alternately you can remove issues from the S. Court's consideration. Amend the Constitution to the effect that labor issues or privacy issues or whatever issue you desire can't be ruled on as it is outside the jurisdiction of the court. This is probably a bit tricky but could likely be worked out, at least I imagine it could.

Finally you can just ignore the court. Andrew Jackson(I think it was Jackson) made a remark to along the lines of "The Supreme Court has made their decision now let them enforce it." He could say that as the Court has no enforcement abilities. Rather it relies on the executive branch to enforce its decisions.

I'm not a political science/law expert by any means so I may have some of this wrong, but as it stands, if I'm right, that seems like plenty of methods to me that might be employed to modify the court without resorting to term limits. Perhaps a better method to advance leftist/progressive causes would be abolishing the electoral college's involvement in presidential elections - making them instead run as a straight popular vote, and perhaps add representation for Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam/Virgin Islands/Samoa etc. Small states might still have representation through their Senators, but IIRC the population advantage held by Democrats in urban areas would ensure a Democrat president for many terms. Someone with more knowledge of voter demographics might be able to weigh in on this and say for certain.

[AP]

8. Term limits...

...wouldn't be to push anyone to do anything. They would ensure that the makeup of the judiciary cycles more often so that the people who are in office are people whose ideas about how the world works were formed in the previous two or three decades, rather than 50 or 60 years earlier. This isn't in the interest of the left or right, so much as it's in the interest of progress -- it ensures that people in powerful policy-forming positions have attitudes which reflect contemporary ideas of policy making (but, of course, a party looking backwards which happens to be in power, can appoint backwards-looking people, but they wouldn't be able to serve for life).

As for your points: (1) packing the court didn't work with FDR and it would come at a very high political price, (2) impeachment does nothing to ensure a cycle, and it's nasty, (3) altering jurisdication doesn't solve the problem and creates new problems (who the hell will you make the final arbiter of privacy issues?), and (4) notwithstanding Jackson, it's not easy to ignore the court.

[DemExpat]

12. I tend to think that it would make little difference in

contemporary attitudes being reflected in the Supreme Court.
The 'liberal-minded' justices now have what we consider to be ideas that match our own, and they seem to vote accordingly, while the conservative justices seem to block progress. Blocking (social) progress IS an issue of left or right IMO. What is progress to us is dangerous change to conservatives.

The only answer IMO is for the electorate to vote increasingly for Democratic candidates in the Legislature and Executive....

DemEx

Besides, the Constitution intended to have the Supreme Court act as a balance of power, not as policy-maker. To judge whether policy was constitutional or not, not to create legislature. This judgement would seem to be fine in the hands of older people, as long as their political views did not interfere......now that is the problem, because that seems to be impossible for any human being.

[AP]

13. Judiciary balances power...

...and it balances the power to do what? To make and form and effect policy.

And what good is it to vote for Democratic candidates if their influence on the judiciary is to appoint judges only if some 90 year old judge appointed 50 years ago dies? And what good is it for Democrats 50 years from now to have to live with a judiciary which was appointed by a Democrat or Republican 50 years earlier?

[DemExpat]

14. It all comes down to what the people will accept.....that is democracy

The Supreme Court balances the power by simply judging if the policy is 'covered' by the Constitution or not.
Now, that should not be too influenced by age, should it?

As I understand it, the Justices before the New Deal Era were very strict constructionists, blocking any attempt for state and federal government to handle growing socio-economic problems.....this resulted finally in such opposition from the electorate and state and national government( loss of respect of the people and FDR's court packing plans) that they had to capitulate to pressure and started to allow more government policies to stand.

The problem with judicial review and judicial activism in the 50s-60s-70s was that, while allowing some very democratic enhancing policies to be enacted (like Brown v Board of Education, 1954 and Roe vs Wade 1973), this sets the precedent for interpreting the Constitution as the Justices see fit for their political views - great when you agree with it, abhorrent when you disagree!

So, in my view, it is best to keep policy making in the hands of the elected legistlature and executive, and out of the hands of 9 appointed judges. That is the best way to protect democracy.

And in the interest of independence and stability, life appointments should not (they have not seemed to be so far) be such a threat for American Constitutional democracy.

Let the ingenious checks and balances work itself out IMO.

DemEx

[AP]

16. Long judicial terms don't change the character of judiciary.

It doesn't convert judiciary's essential check and balance role of interpreting the law. (And interpreting the law DOES have an inherent policy-influencing effect which can't be denied.)

My argument isn't so much that life terms are a threat to Democracy. My argument is that they slow progress. When life expectancies were shorter, this wasn't so much of a problem. 150 years ago, a judiciary 20 years out of synch was what you got with life terms. Perhaps a judiciary 20 years out of synch creates the right check and balance. But now life appointments could give you a judiciary 40 or 50 years out of synch with contemporary notions about public policy and how the world works. We may be doing more damage than good to society if the judiciary is that far out of synch. So, what do you do? I say long term limits designed to reincorporate a closer synchronicity with the attitutes of democratically elected politicians.

I think it was in The Clinton Wars where I read someone (Blumenthal?) argue that some of the biggest problems with American democracy is that there's less democracy, with more and more decision making shifting to unelected judiciaries and international arbitration bodies (or maybe it was The Best Democracy Money Can Buy). It is definitely a problem. I think direct election of the judiciary is not the answer, but I think more appointments made by politicians who have been more recently elected might be one small way to address the problem.

[DemExpat]

23. I'm just not convinced that being old means being out of sync.....

Life appointments could give you a judiciary 40 or 50 years IN sync with modern ideas of policy.

I am also wary of implementing change that might not work out positively - I would rather try to inforce more judical restraint.

I'm not convinced that Americans would in future vote in more liberal legislators, so more conservative judges might be the outcome of that change.
It also might usher in constant over-rulings of past Supreme Court decisions, and stability is not something to toss out the window IMO.

The Framers wanted government to move slowly - and I think that is one of the most brilliant - and often frustrating - conditions of American democracy.

More and more decision making shifted to international arbitrational bodies also has it's good and bad sides, don't you agree? Trying to get the US to live up to international agreements about the environment, etc. is a good thing, for example.
I'm supportive of the United Nations, and somewhat supportive of the idea of the EU - although that lack of democracy might prove to be unacceptable in the (near) future.

I think that the gravest danger is decision making consolidating in the hands of the power elite, corporate lobbies, etc. Big business.

DemEx

[bowens43]

20. Every time someone disagrees with the SC

they shout for term limits or impeachment. This is precisely why the appointments are for life. The system is working fine.


"ensures that people in powerful policy-forming positions have attitudes which reflect contemporary ideas of policy making "

Sorry , but the Supreme Court was never ment to be a policy-forming body

[AP]

22. Not exactly what I'm arguing. And I'm not so much disagreeing

with the Supreme Court on anything in particular. I'm just concerned with the Supreme Court being FAR out of synch with the mood of the country. I accept that the Supreme Court may be out of synch with the rest of the country. I just think there should be some mechanism to keep the Supreme Court from getting too far out of synch. Long terms substituting for life terms is one way to achieve this, and I think it's one of the least invasive methods.

[SoCalDem]

7. Too lazy to re-write this.. I agree it needs changing.. 20 is too long

SoCalDem  (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-03 09:59 PM
Original message
The Supreme Court DOES need a complete overhaul..


If you think about it, the extended life expectancy has totally changed what the founding fathers intended..

By the time someone would have a chance at being picked, they would have had to have been in their 50's (at least).. and back then people did not live much past 60..(most people)... so they really intended that any one person would probably not serve more than 10 years or so, and since the presidents served 8 years, their "influence" would not usually linger for decades like it does now..

If someone like Clarence gets in at 40 something, he/she COULD serve for 40 years.. That is pure nonsense..

I think that since people are living longer, they either need to set a minimum age of ...say 60 and limit their tenure to a maximum of age 70...unless they want to actually stand for an extension BY re-vote of congress.. That would eliminate the "stacking" of the court..

so...whaddaya think??


link to thread with other ideas

[AP]

9. Well, if life expectancy is the problem...

...then having an age-based measure doesn't get at the core of the problem. Eventually, 60 or 70 might be considered young if life expectancies go up to 100 or 110, and then you'd have perfectly capable, good people who are 50 and who'd never get appointed. You'd lose their talent because politicians would only look to appoint young people who could sit for a long time.

I like the term limit.

I agree that politics is about incremental change, and that, structurally, American politics is designed so that change can only be in increments (unless you have 66 senators from your party). And I appreciate that this is a good thing. So I think you need to strike a balance somewhere between a term so long that it totally stonewalls progress, and a term so short that it sabotages judicial independence.

[Ponderer]

10. No

We need an independent judiciary.

[AP]

11. You don't think a guaranteed job for 20 years with the

possibility of renewal promotes independent judgment?

[AP]

15. OK, new idea: judicial appointments for a first term

of 20 to 25 years, with the appointee being able to chose when to expose self to renewal or loss of appointment after year 20 and up to year 25. The second term is for 10 years (advice and consent not required), if first term was 20 years, but time is deducted for every year over 20 the appointee served (so if the appointee waited until year 25, you can only serve a second 5 year term). After the second term, you can only serve subsequent 5 year terms, which need to be renewed with the advice and consent of senate.

Just an idea. Making it up as I go. Subject to revision.

[Hubert Flottz]

17. I think Supreme court judges and all federal judges should be elected!

By the people and for the people! It's too much power to go unchecked, the proof of that, look at the coup of 2000! The SCOTUS Elected the president 5 to 4! The system of checks and balances was compromised on 12/12/2000 by an unconstitutional act, in the Bush vs Gore decision IMO!

Term Limits is a great idea in this case!

[AP]

18. Judicial elections are almost a universal failure

I'd like to see a lot more campaign finance reform before I'd like to see election of judges.

[Hubert Flottz]

26. So Would I !!!!

The Law, instead of corporate greed is what the justasses forgot about! They voted the PARTY LINE in Bush Vs Gore! The Corporate donations to the people who appointed the justices when They ran for office, was a factor in the current make up of the Supreme Court! Those 5 people are responsible for the total mess Bush has caused since they overuled the Rule Of Law!

I say TERM LIMITS!

The Repubs are always screaming and crying about Democrats playing Politics, but they all loved it when the filthy five did it! The same Judges that SWORE to UPHOLD OUR Constitution played politics bigtime!

The Supreme court made up the rules as they went along on Bush vs Gore and corporate sponsored politicians made that possible, not the people! We should DEMAND campaign Finance Reform to repair politics! The will of the people is secondary to money now!

[bowens43]

19. So in other words, those with the most money

should select the judges? Or the majority should rule the minority?

The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If judges were selected by the majority, that protection would disappear.


The fact that both the conservatives and liberals are bitching about various supreme court decisions tells me that the system is working as it should.

[AP]

21. The nice thing about judges is that, once you've been appointed

you don't have to be loyal to party politics. That allows you to be loyal to the law.

Elected executives and legislators SHOULD be loyal to the electorate.

You don't want to have judges who are continuously dependant on the party machine to ensure their election and reelection.

[dusty64]

24. Sounds reasonable to me.

Someone posted here that when the Constitution was set up the life span was significantly lower and the founders really couldn't foresee people in the judiciary serving for 40-50 years. I would gladly have a term limit for these positions, anything to make them more accountable for their decisions.

[fshrink]

25. The first question to answer is:

How is the interest of the people served with a life-long public office?
The general principle of democracy, the government of the people, is that the people is governed by elected individuals. Any infraction to that principle is a breach of the democratic contract. Historically, there have been mainly two political attempts to circumvent this fundamental principle: selecting in some way the number of people who can vote, extending the duration of the representation.