What would it take to change Supreme Court tenure to 10 years?

[Equinox Moon]

This life long position situation is ridiculous. If we don't change something, we will have supreme court ruling after ruling on behalf of the billionaires, ultra-mega corporations, religious cult right and racists etc.

We have to stop this RW cult take over!

[edhopper]

1. A Constitutional Amendment

[rsdsharp]

2. Article III judges (including the Supreme Court Justices)

are appointed for life on good behavior. It would require a Constitutional amendment to change that.

[Equinox Moon]

4. Life time appointments are just wrong.

A constitutional amendment sounds like a big task, but it has been done before and we can do it again. While we are at it, that 2nd amendment needs work.

[0rganism]

10. rationale is that it frees judges from any job-based commitment to those who appoint them

so they would honor only the law of the land and interpret it without consideration of political consequences
at least that's the story, your mileage may vary

[bearsfootball516]

3. That would be dangerous territory.

If you have a president that serves two terms and then the next president is also of that party, that's 12 years. With justices serving 10-year terms, that party could stack the court 9-0.

[Equinox Moon]

5. Well, we don't want that either.

We want fair. There must be a way.

[Stuart G]

46. Now, it is not dangerous territory..It depends on who is appointed, and when, and what is the topic

For example in 1954 or was it 55..Brown vs the Board of Ed, made segregation "illegal." That over time improved the country and our attitudes. Yes it took time. And that was a very important vote, that probably would not have happened if there were term limits. When that decision was made, the justices knew that they would not be thrown out because of that decision. And the founding fathers knew that and that is why they put it in.

......Say the Supreme Court makes a very strong ruling against Mr.Trump. A ruling that limits him in a very positive way. (you can fill in the blanks)..Now, if the justices needed to be reappointed, then maybe they would think different about making such a ruling. But they don't need to be reappointed. That is the real reason why McConnell holding up Obama's appointment was so .."evil"...Yes, there is a rung in hell for McConnell, and it is exactly the same rung for Trump. They can live in hell together...

[icymist]

77. Not only that, but we all just witnessed Republican refusing a SCOTUS nomoniee

until 'the next election' simply because they controlled the Senate. No, people need to be allowed to or get up and vote ever single election.

[YessirAtsaFact]

6. I read somewhere that Congress could add more seats to the court

Take all three branches of government and expand the court with liberals

Easier said than done

[Equinox Moon]

9. Yes! I remember that now.

I too heard that. It would take dems in power to be willing to take a strong action like that.

[NewJeffCT]

14. Yes, they can

I believe FDR had proposed it, but even though Democrats controlled the House & Senate, they backed off when they got a lot of negative press over it. Otherwise, it's been set at 9 since the 1860s


After the original number of 5, he number had gone as high as 10 and as low as 7

https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html

[Equinox Moon]

18. Sounds to me like it is time for a change with the # of SCJ's

[Cuthbert Allgood]

91. FDR didn't really want that to happen; it was a bold move on his part.

He needed the decisions for Commerce Clause to go his way. The threat of adding justices caused the needed shift in the needed votes. It was brilliant.

[Shrike47]

16. The Constitution is silent on the number of SC justices. 9 is statutory. Therefore, it's changeable.

FDR tried to enlarge it but met with Congressional opposition. I can hear the screaming now if a president tried to mess with it. The lifetime appointment part is in the Constitution and much harder to change.

[NewJeffCT]

21. and, he tried to enlarge it when Democrats controlled both Houses, I believe

and still couldn't get it done. It's been set at 9 since the 1860s, though.

[YessirAtsaFact]

25. With McTurtle refusing to even consider Obama's nominees

There’s reason to call Gorsuch an illegitimate justice.

Expanding the court is a way to remedy this situation without impeachment of Gorsuch.

[Equinox Moon]

26. Yes.

[NewJeffCT]

27. Only 1 SCOTUS justice has been impeached in the history of the country

and that was over 200 years ago. Doubt it would happen with Gorusch without gross misconduct. And, if Democrats did succeed, it sets up a Republican response of impeaching a Democratic appointee over a parking ticket.

[samnsara]

7. life time back then was about 50 yrs old....

[Equinox Moon]

19. Good point

[onenote]

34. Not for the founding fathers

While it is true that the average lifespan was relatively short at the time the Constitution was written, there was a huge gap in the lifespans of the privileged class (which included the founding fathers) and the average person. Talk about 1 percenters...folks like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. had access to far better nutrition and medical care than the average landowner.

You can see this vividly in the first eight presidents of the United States --they lived anywhere from 67 (Washington) to 90 (Adams). The average was nearly 80. Every one of the first eight (and well beyond that) were elected to their first term while they were in their mid-50s to early 60s.

That is the cohort that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with -- they weren't expecting Justices to die at age 50 or even 60. And, in fact, many of the first members of the Supreme Court lived into their 70s and 80s. Four of the first dozen or so ended up serving on the Court for 30 or more years.

[struggle4progress]

63. "Average lifetime" was short due to infant and child mortality

Lots of people lived to a ripe old age

[Freddie]

8. What FDR tried to do

Increase the # of justices - is perfectly OK in the Constitution and probably easier than getting term limits. Certainly not easy. I fear this country is truly fucked for a generation.

[Equinox Moon]

12. We need FEARCE Dem leadership to take actions like this, increasing the # on the court

[FarPoint]

15. Yes...

We are fucked....in my lifetime anyways.

[FarPoint]

11. One will have to enter....

A parallel universe....it's not happening in our lifetime

[Equinox Moon]

20. The irony is that many of us feel like we ARE in a parallel universe now.

[genxlib]

13. This won't happen

And there are pros and cons. As pointed out above, that duration would allow a stacking that would be dangerous.

But I would like to point out an aspect of this. I am disgusted that justices are chosen for their youth because that translates to the longest possible reign of the court. We deserve better choices than the youngest person available. I know that it isn't the worst aspect of who is being nominated but it sucks.

I would add that any such proposal must come with an absolute prohibition on after-term activity; no political office, no lobbying, nothing. One of the advantages of lifetime appointments is that we don't want them beholden to anybody.

[Equinox Moon]

17. All really good points, thanks for the discussion

[onenote]

66. so what could former judges do?

Traffic cases?

[genxlib]

80. Retire

Volunteer... Read to Kids...I don't particularly care as long as they don't make money in any way that is influenced by the court (in others words.. in any way at all)

We could afford to give them a cushy retirement. It would be cheap compared to the influence that would be for sale otherwise.


That would be part of the deal in taking the position

[beachbum bob]

22. Constitutional amendment...so no chance but judges can be impeached

Any judge, including Supreme Court ones. Why we need big wins in Nov 2018 and 2020 with congress in our hands and a filibuster proof senate...hell a super majority senate. We can rid the bench of 2 right away

[Equinox Moon]

28. And, Gorsuch is illegitimate and I would think that would qualify for impeachment

This entire RW cult take over is illegitimate. Many need impeachment!

[beachbum bob]

41. He was voted on, so it's not..

[EffieBlack]

67. He has not committed a high crime or misdemeamor

[Phoenix61]

23. Not sure about 10 years but definitely a

mandatory retirement age. It's 65 for pilots who are responsible for the lives of several 100 people at a time. A Supreme Court Justice is responsible for millions at a time so 65 seems like a fair one for them too.

[Equinox Moon]

24. I think some state supreme court's have it set for 70 years old

Good idea on the age limit. We need to do something.

[onenote]

69. If that limitation was made law today

It would be a disaster.

[Phoenix61]

73. If enacted retroactively, absolutely

Implement it for all new appointees.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Would it matter with the CURRENT USSC abstaining from ruling against gerrymandering?

And with gerrymandering comes Republicans being elected in both the Senate and the White House. And said republican President will continue to nominate repugnant judges to the USSC and the republican Senate will confirm said judges indefinitely UNTIL we can stop the rigging of elections NOW. Otherwise, would it matter whether the tenure is 10 years or until retirement or death?

[quartz007]

30. Everyone in gov't should be term limited to 10 years

Include scotus, congress, all judges, all bureaucrats ... Make it a true citizens gov't and reduce corruption by orders of magnitude. Then give them a moderate pension and send them out to make a living on Main Street.

[Equinox Moon]

33. Agreed!

[struggle4progress]

37. That produces government-by-lobbyist

People develop expertise in careers. Would you support a ten year limit on someone's career as a surgeon? If not, then why impose such a limit on diplomats or regulators or legislators?

[quartz007]

42. Just the OPPOSITE!!!!

Lobbyists have no use for lame duck congress critters.
A the more seniority congress critters get the most lobbyist money and favors.

[struggle4progress]

57. No. Where there is no institutional memory, the lobbyists step into the vacuum

[jberryhill]

58. Correct

New blood in the game works to their advantage, not their disadvantage.

[EffieBlack]

68. Exactly!

[Equinox Moon]

70. New laws could be made to restrain or kick out lobbyists

[EffieBlack]

74. Would never work

People have a right to redress - you can't cut off access to legislators.

And, even if it managed to get around the Constitution, any such legislation would also cut off access of Planned Parenthood and the Children's Defense Fund and the NAACP and ACLU and many other organizations and causes that rely on the right and ability to lobby Congress.

[mythology]

39. That would work out very poorly

It would transfer even more power to lobbyists.

[quartz007]

43. Common...all the power resides with seniority

For example committee chairs (selected with seniority) have the most power.
Lobbyists are not going to waste money on congress critters who are temporary
And will soon be outÎ of power.

[EffieBlack]

71. The inexperienced legislators will be heavily dependent on lobbyists

[EffieBlack]

72. Term limits would give us fewer Teddys and more Teds

No, thank you.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

82. No. Terrible idea.

You would lose vast amounts of institutional memory and knowledge, which is exactly what's going on right now in agencies like the EPA where experienced people are leaving in droves.

Given that federal judges are all appointed, and even without mandatory retirements, Congress is frequently very slow at approving nominees, we'd pretty soon have no serving judges at all.

If anything, corruption would remain the same, possibly even increase, given that everyone would do his or her best to benefit from the short time in office. Sort of like Presidents of Mexico.

[quartz007]

86. The surest way to eliminate corruption in DC is

to outlaw all private & corporate contributions for political campaigns. All should be funded equally by the tax payers.

[quartz007]

87. You are also ignoring the obvious

fact how important seniority is in congress.
All committee chairs are usually the most seniority people.
Committee chairs collect much more political contributions.

All that tells me is people build enormous power by remaining in congress for decades.

George Washington and the first government had no prior experience running the government, and they did fine in preserving the country.

Government has become too bureaucratic, and too slow.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

88. Running the government in 1789 was vastly simpler

than running the government is some 250 years later.

I do believe that certain senior Democrats should be retiring, but whenever I dare say that and name names here on DU I get alerted on. But my issue tends to be an age one. If someone who is in the 8th or 9th decade of life is still running for re-election, and there's no sense of paving the way for someone younger, that's an issue.

Which is vastly different from a 10 year term limit. Especially a ten year term limit for Supreme Court justices. As has already been pointed out, every single year there would be a new Justice appointed, and the political uproar over the nominees would stop everything. Or if the President is not of the same party as the Senate, after a few years we'd be down to four or five Justices. Not a good idea.

Let me put it this way: would you want only to be seen by a physician with ten or fewer years of experience?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

92. We have term limits. It's called "don't vote for them, then"

Whenever people talk about term limits it is usually about the other guy and not their representative.

[Demsrule86]

31. It won't happen...constitutional amendment...work to take the senate if we get it...no more judges.

[quartz007]

44. Yes, right, need a constitutional amendment for term limits

[Demsrule86]

48. We might take the Senate...tough pickup but...

[quartz007]

51. 2018 results will surprise...for the better!

There is too much going against the party in White House.

[Demsrule86]

64. I am hopeful too...

And now they are doubling down and saying anyone in detention doesn't get their kid back which means unless you plead guilty you kid remains in baby jail.

[vi5]

32. Or we could have done a more aggressive push to get our rightful nominee in....

..instead of just assuming that nominating a moderate and asking nicely and hoping the press would do their job and assuming that Republicans would be shamed by and pay the price for their unprecedented obstructionism.

There were lots of people saying this and pushing for this but were told "Relax.....we've got this." or "We have to keep these systems in place or when Republicans in charge they'll be able to screw us." any number of other dismissive retorts to any push for a more aggressive posture in the face of what we were dealing with.

And now we yet again are in yet another in a long line of "Who could have predicted?!?!?" situations.

[Fullduplexxx]

35. Disagree . People need to stop fkg around with their vote.

[struggle4progress]

36. I support life-time appointments: it insulates the courts from short-term political influence

If we had ten year staggered terms, there would be a Supreme Court fight every year: when the President's party didn't control Congress, we'd operate with a diminished court; and if two-term President controlled Congress near the end of his term, the Court would be dominated by that person's appointees

[quartz007]

45. Voters will have more power because...

Who ever voters elect will choose judges. People like Nunes will not yield so much power if term limited.

[struggle4progress]

49. You propose a regime in which jurisprudence oscillates wildly from year to year,

depending on the vagaries of elections. Nothing could be more destructive of our tradition of the rule of law

[quartz007]

50. Why is a 90 year old judge better than a middle age judge?

I have and had lots and lots of 90 year old people in family.
Both my grandfathers lived past 95. I saw them in their 70's,
Then 80's then 90's. The reduction in their cognitive behavior was palpable.

When my mother was 75, she was smart as a whip. Traveled on her own from
Mumbai to Chicago by herself. At age 95 she was just a shadow of her past,
At age 103 just before she passed away, she did not even recognize me!

Advance Age does deteriorate the mind.

[struggle4progress]

55. The oldest-ever Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, retired at 90 in early 1931

He seems to have been of sufficiently sound mind at age 90 to write and deliver the Court's opinion in the tax case Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) and in McBoyle v. US 283 U.S. 25 (1931)

There is some reason to think that a habit of mental activity may postpone cognitive decline. Tottering and demented justices has not been a problem in our history.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

83. Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

85 years old. Supreme Court Justice since 1993.

[quartz007]

85. How sharp is her mind compared to

10 years ago (when she was 75)? Have you got an example of her recent writings? I think 75 should be retirement age for all judges.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

89. I don't follow her closely but I get the distinct impression

she is every bit as sharp as she ever was.

People who stay intellectually engaged and active tend to lose less than those who retire, plunk themselves in front of the TV all day and do nothing at all to learn anything new.

Jim Gunn, a science fiction writer, is now 94. He'll be 95 next month. I saw him last month at a science fiction event (the Campbell Conferfence) in Lawrence, KS. He's getting physically frail, but he is every bit as sharp as when I first met him in 1992.

[quartz007]

96. Even if mind is sharp, there is palpable physical deterioration after 75

I have nothing but admiration for justice Ginburg's work for decades. The problem is she is a cancer survivor, and 85, and I have a cancer survivor in my own family, and I have seen first hand the toll it has taken on body. I have seen photo's of the justice unable to stay awake during meetings. But now that Rump is president, I would encourage her to stay on as long as necessary. If I were her, I would have retired during the Obama presidency. After the Justice Kennedy news today, I certainly do not want Rump to get daily double.

[struggle4progress]

94. Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

Argued April 24, 2018 — Decided June 14, 2018
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf

[Cuthbert Allgood]

93. Absolutely agree

The terms of office that were developed were brilliant to allow for some wild fluctuation and a competing balance.

[lagomorph777]

38. Send some justices to Cheney's ranch for a little hunting.

[shraby]

40. Expand the court from 9 members to 11.

[SoCalDem]

47. What we need is a 21 person court

We have 300+ MILLION people, and FIVE people should not be in charge of our laws..

If we had 21 justices we would have a better system..

It would take 11 to TAKE a case, and 11 to DECIDE a case

BUT

the actual deciding 11 would be a random draw.

The right wing nutcases would be more wary of taking a case that they might not be deciding

It might also prevent all the bullshit lawsuits which are designed to rise up to SCOTUS, because there would be no more "sure things"..

States have a better way of handling things:
https://ballotpedia.org/State_supreme_courts

[Equinox Moon]

59. I like it!

We need actual democracy and more judges will help.

I just hope the fake president doesn't do it now and fill the court with extreme radicals.

Thanks for the link about the state judges!

[democratisphere]

52. There should never be lifetime appointments for any office or position.

Lifetime appointments breed political corruption and stagnation.

[MichMan]

53. You realize that is the exact same argument people use against teacher tenure?

[democratisphere]

54. There should be NO TENURE for anyone, including teachers.

[Demsrule86]

65. You are wrong about teachers...the worst school I ever taught in was in Georgia where there

are no unions or tenure...it was so political and they were cheating on tests like crazy..resigned.

[democratisphere]

75. Welcome to the corporate world.

The work environment has become almost hostile and very unproductive and destructive.

[Demsrule86]

84. It was terrible. Teaching there was a form of child abuse. I was ordered to get certain kids out...

kids who don't do well on the tests or the principal just didn't like...they were as young as 14. When I refused, I was called insubordinate and shit was spread about me all over the school...The kids I taught however did very well in testing so that was ironic. I had what was considered the worst class...I loved them however...I was also supposed to show kids standardized test. This is illegal. I resigned.

[struggle4progress]

56. No one should be absolutely safe from removal. But for many professional positions,

it is appropriate to protect people against whimsical or politically-motivated retaliation

[democratisphere]

61. Absolutely agree with that!

[struggle4progress]

62. Teacher tenure does not prevent removal of teachers

nor does our system of lifetime appointment of judges prevent their removal

Lew-Port teacher fired for 'demeaning' students, colleagues
By Thomas J. Prohaska
Published Mon, May 28, 2018
Updated Mon, May 28, 2018
It takes a lot for a tenured teacher to be fired in New York State. For a teacher at Lewiston-Porter Central School District, it took a documented history of being mean ...

Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges

[librechik]

60. meteor strike

[democratisphere]

76. 10 years is too long. 6 years is more than enough.

[Hoyt]

78. Not for limits. Sometimes long tenure works in our favor, sometimes not.

[Buzz cook]

79. You could make a rule that a nomination has to

be considered and voted on inside a certain time frame, such as a month.

[onenote]

95. That would be a terrible rule

There needs to be time to vet a nominee and organize and build opposition

[Buzz cook]

97. But it would keep Mitch Mconnell

From stealing a judgeship

[onenote]

98. How? The republicans would have voted lockstep against Garland

if forced to take a vote. They could argue that they weren't given enough time to vet the nominee.

[still_one]

81. an amendment to the Constitution. It isn't going to happen

[Cuthbert Allgood]

90. SCOTUS was made lifetime to balance things out.

And to make sure that they weren't so subject to influence.

The House has the opportunity to turn over every 2 years. The Senate is more stable with only 1/3 possibly being turned over every two years. The President lasts 2 two-year cycles. The lifetime is there so that there aren't huge swings in the way things are interpreted.

I like that collection of turnover times.