hyphenate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-11-08 07:56 PM
Original message |
Judiciary Lifetime Appointments |
|
I think that the rules about the Supreme Court's length of service needs to be reconsidered. Lifetime appointments, regardless of which side they're on, need to be stopped. For the most part, some of the justices could serve well into their senior years, but I think that some of the justices need to be relieved of duty after they hit a reasonable age, perhaps 70, but certainly not into their 80s or beyond. Physical illness, as well as other limitations, affect most of us at some point (hell, I'm in my early 50s and I can't think so good some of the time), and trying to make landmark decisions with a slower mind is going to end up being arbitrary at best. Some of the judges will keep illnesses to themselves instead of telling the world the truth, and that doesn't bode well for all of us.
And let's face it: some of our SCOTUS folks might simply like the chance to retire!
|
shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-11-08 08:04 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Not to mention Scalia who seems to get |
|
dottier and dottier by the year.
|
WillowTree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-11-08 09:18 PM
Response to Original message |
2. They can retire any time they want to. |
|
Just as Justice O'Connor did.
And changing the lifetime term for Federal judges would require a Constitutional Amendment. It would be very difficult to get the votes necessary regardless of which way the courts are leaning at any given point in time.
|
Supersedeas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-12-08 05:15 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Jay Bybee -- co-author of the Torture Memo, also a lifetime appointment |
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-12-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Confirmed by Democrats |
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-12-08 06:35 AM
Response to Original message |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-12-08 06:44 AM
Response to Original message |
6. IA. Or they should not be nominated until they are of a certain age |
|
No one should spend 40 years on that, or any other, court.
The * Admin. takes the line that we have no right of judicial review, and that the lower federal courts don't have to exist. If they take that line, why don't they admit their appointees shouldn't stay there forever? (Though the Constitution says differently, but when has * ever cared about what that document said?)
|
Thothmes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-12-08 06:48 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Think a max age of 75 would work well. Agree, lifetime |
|
appointments ensure that the courts will not respond to the changing social and political climates in the country. Then again, there those that will argue, that is the intent of the current system. JMO
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 10:57 PM
Response to Original message |