Posted on 03/29/2015 6:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As he continues the process of “considering” running for President, Mike Huckabee is rolling out some of the golden oldies of political bones to chew. Such was the case this week when he trotted out the time honored proposal of putting limits on the terms of Supreme Court justices.
Prospective presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called Saturday for the imposition of term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices, saying that the nation’s founders never intended to create lifetime, irrevocable posts.
“Nobody should be in an unelected position for life,” the former Arkansas governor said in an interview, expanding upon remarks he made during an hourlong speech at the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda.
“If the president who appoints them can only serve eight years, the person they appoint should never serve 40. That has never made sense to me; it defies that sense of public service,” he said.
There were obviously arguments among the founders on this subject, but it’s a bit problematic to claim that they “never intended” the justices to have lifetime, irrevocable posts. First, the wording of Article III seems to lend itself to the idea.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Granted, given the way our language has evolved over the centuries there is room to debate precisely what that means or if a lifetime appointment is inferred, but Hamilton waxed a bit more poetic on the subject in Federalist 78.
The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the Judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of Government. In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the Prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any Government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
Obviously it’s not entirely clear, though, as there have been other efforts in the past by members of both parties to curb the power of the court. Shortly after Barack Obama took office a diverse cast of Washington characters cooked up the Judicial Act of 2009 which suggested a number of structural changes to the court, including the possibility of what clearly look like term limits in one form or another. But even then it sounded like they were wrestling with the obvious “constitutional objections” which the proposal faced and looking for some side doors to get around them.
Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.
I’ve yet to see such a proposal which is anywhere near ironclad, and I doubt any of these would pass muster. And that doesn’t even begin to address the fact that any such legislation, once enacted, would be immediately challenged and eventually need to receive the blessing of … the Supreme Court. I hate to sound this cynical yet again, but come on. Are they really going to approve a scheme like that?
No, I’m afraid that if people really want this sort of a change it’s going to take a Constitutional amendment or convention. But do you really want to change the system? Even if you are unhappy with the current makeup of the court it can always eventually get better. Or worse. You just never know, do you? But it’s hard to argue that Hamilton and his peers were on the right track when they worried over justices who were so concerned for their employment prospects that they felt pressure to bend to the will of the public or the media every time a controversial decision came down the pike. The system is far from perfect, but I’m sure it could get even worse if we begin tinkering with it on a fundamental level.
That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?
Good plan. Out country would be so much better off if Scalia and Thomas had been forced to retire during Clinton or Obama’s term /sarc.
I think so.
I’d like to see Congress rein them in by declaring certain subjects off limits to the Court.
“...That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?...”
-
NO, it would not require a Constitutional Convention.
But it would require a congressional amendment or an Article V amendment.
Just a Constitutional Amendment.
I am completely against this.
Until one party or the other, stops exporting jobs everywhere else but America, we are greatly served by a supreme court which doesn’t change much at all.
GOP there is one important issue, and NEITHER PARTY is paying attention to it yet.
Bring back jobs to America.
Then we can talk about changing (or not changing) our supreme court.
But for the time being, leave them entirely alone please.
Just my humble opinion.
This is a great idea.
Grandfather in all the lobs and apply it to any decent appointee coming in with the republican president
Typical self destructing GOP
The USSC’s shenanigans are a great cause of our job flight, mostly due to empowering the expansion of centralized government. Yes, this is an issue that covers such a thing.
I’m not sure I agree with that.
Both parties are completely sold out, on American jobs.
Democrats are sold out. Republicans are sold out.
Everyone is sold out. Don’t change the Supreme Court.
What we need, is to change the two parties, back to working for America.
First.
No, Article V of States.
Judicial activism is a big cause of our jobs going away. The USSC does need some change, since they have been a big vehicle in liberal politicians pushing liberal anti-job policies.
You are kidding or is this comical?
Give Congress term limits first, then we’ll talk.
The Constitution mentions “good behavior” but not life or any other tenure. Certainly by today’s standards term limits on the SC could be legislative. SC term limits have been seriously proposed a number of times.
Long overdue. Same on consecutive terms for senators
Yes, imagine 8-year terms.
Rehnquist, appointed 1972 by Nixon replaced by Carter in 1980.
Scalia, appointed 1986 by Reagan replaced by Clinton in 1994.
Kennedy, appointed 1988 by Reagan, replaced by Clinton in 1996.
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, appointed 1993 by Clinton would’ve reappointed by Dubya in 2001 because of a Dem Senate.
Breyer, appointed in 1994, would’ve been reappointed by Dubya in 2002 again because of a Dem Senate.
Clarence Thomas, appointed 1991 by Bush Sr. replaced by Clinton in 1999 (and it would’ve been by then-Deputy Atty Gen. Eric Holder, for whom Dubya would’ve had to reappoint in 2007 for fear of being labeled a racist and with a Dem Congress).
Chief Justice Roberts, appointed 2005 by Dubya, would’ve been replaced by Zero in 2013.
Alito, appointed 2006 by Dubya, replaced by Zero in 2014.
A good chance we’d have had an all 9 Democrat SCOTUS today with that notion.
Way to go Huckster, the stupid keeps right on rollin’.
The life long term was created so that when they expired, they would not be indebted to anyone for a job.
Term limits are really not a great idea when the emperor is an @$$hole.
How about the judges run for office as the local judges in my neck of the woods do?
I don’t care for appointees. People appointed to an office are usually friends, relatives,; cronies or political donors. They may not be qualified for the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.