The Supreme Court should no longer be a lifetime appointment
When 60 votes were needed you would generally get more mainstream appointments to the high court. But now with the GOP going “nuclear” we’ll likely see young, far right or left justices that may serve for 30 or 40 years. It’s basically going to come down to the luck of the draw so to speak who’s in power when someone dies. And from seeing who Trump has nominated its clear the GOP is trying to make the court another arm of the party. I don’t know what the answer is, maybe 10-15 year terms, but this lifetime thing has got to go.
= new reply since forum marked as read
as he had been when I clerked for him two decades before. I had been his first legal assistant when he became a Circuit Judge. Unlike his subsequent clerks, whose only experience had been going to school, I had been in the Air Force and was still an officer in the Reserves (I'd fly to Europe or Panama and Puerto Rico on weekends when my classmates were in the law library) and had had a variety of other jobs -- like working on the newspaper in Tupelo, MS -- that let me perform a lot other services subsequent clerks couldn't. And while I respected his position and him as a person I was never intimidated by either, which he liked. His secretary told me that the Judge would drive his subsequent clerks crazy by comparing them to me: "Now, I don't expect you to be able to do this, but when Steve was here he could..."
From watching the system at work, my thought on the "forced to retire at 70" policy is this:
First of all, South Carolina Supreme Court justices get paid a good salary--$180,000 annually. In South Carolina that's pretty damned good. Since your retirement is based on your final income, it's a good job to retire from.
In South Carolina, a typical career path is to start either at the Citadel or USC (that's University of South Carolina for you Left Coasters), then law school at USC, practice in a small town for a few years and be active in the community until you're well known, then get elected to the state legislature (a part-time gig), and then get elected by the legislature to become a Circuit Judge. Being a Circuit Judge is a pretty sweet job -- it's interesting, you're respected, the hours are reasonable, and you don't have to put up with client shit -- and most people are content to stay there. And since nearly all judges are former legislators, the state legislature has made damned sure those jobs pay well and have a sweet retirement.
Then, if you play your cards right -- the Judge was very good at this -- when a slot on the state appellate court or Supreme Court opened up, you moved there. Finally, if you were really good at your job on the Supreme Court and had made the right connections in the state legislature, you became Chief.
Don't get me wrong, the Judge (my term of affection for him -- it drove him crazy when he was Chief) was really good at his job. He knew the law, loved the law, respected and liked lawyers, and was always focused on the bigger picture.
And at the age of 70 he was forced to retired, and the legislator gravy train moved forward one step as the next Chief stepped into the job.
He learned to play golf, became a Deacon at his church, and continued staying in touch with his friends, which seemed to be everyone in the South Carolina legal system, legislature, the town where I had met him, his church, buddies from WWII -- lots of people. South Carolina is a relatively small state, and it's possible to become a big fish in a small pond. Before he died in his 90s he had become extremely well known, liked, and respected. I've never met a man I have admired or liked as much as him.
So that, from my limited perspective as a legal assistant, is why the system worked the way it did. I called it "The Legislator Full Employment Act," much to the Judge's annoyance. He could have easily worked throughout his 80s without a diminishment in his mental or legal skills, but he was fully aware of the system and accepted life as it was.
BTW, in the two years I was there I never got even a whiff of what his political leanings were, not that it mattered to me. When we were interviewing for my replacement one youngster's first question to me was, "Which political party does he belong to?" That was one of many reasons he didn't get the job. The fact he had married the girl I'd had a crush on when I was in law school didn't play a factor, of course. I would never be that petty. 
Thanks. I enjoyed what you have to say, especially that political bias was kept scrupulously out -- and a little surprised at that also, but heartening and impressive.
It's understandable why SC's secure rack railway of a career path ends on the top at a cliff. But for SCOTUS, why not just a term limit? Members of the federal reserve serve staggered 14-year terms. SCOTUS could be 17- or 19-year terms. Nothing that would coincide with national election years.
Failing a constitutional amendment, perhaps congress could increase the number and put anyone who'd served 20 years on what would effectively mostly be just emeritus status, available when needed to fill in, and slash their pay in half.
Whoops to that last, just noticed they'd be on full pay forever. NOT the right kind of incentive for people you really want to take a powder. 
Btw, my MIL lived in Palm Springs. So while she was there, there were at least two.
The constitution also says we can have guns. How’s that working out?
When we want to follow the Constitution
Bush II had some ideas about not needing search warrants- I'm sure you'll have no problem with warrant-less searches if we are assured it is for a good cause
Or when the gop decides to remove Justice Ginsberg since there should be term limits
How would that work for you
