Replies

I agree with the sentiment that we are in danger of accumulating superannuated justices, but ironically Justice Scalia . . .
I put it to you that SCOTUS justices are too important. Certainly, too important to leave to appointment/senate confirmation. Thus, I propose that Trump’s example should become enshrined in the Constitution: Trump put out a list - actually two lists - of names he would consider for SCOTUS. It worried me and pleased me at the same time. It worried me because each and every name on those lists represented a vulnerability. What if the Democrats found or synthesized a reason to oppose one of them? It was a risk.
But in the event, the Democrats passed on attacking any of them. Now, that list is all gravy. We all know how Democrats love to claim that a Republican SCOTUS nominee is “out of the mainstream” - but If - I trust, when -Trump actually nominates someone from his lists to fill the Scalia seat, “out of the mainstream” will ring hollow as a critique. In the present context, the Democrats will have to defend half (25) of their senate seats in ’18. I hope that Republicans nominate strong contenders to challenge those seats, especially the ten from states Trump won. The Democrats will have to count the cost of being cynical about a nominee whose nomination represents the fulfillment of a campaign promise to the electorate of their state.
But to the constitutional issue, IMHO presidential candidates should be able to name SCOTUS justices without senate confirmation, provided the electorate knew about the nomination prior to the presidential election. I.e., the people would confirm the nominee.
As to the superannuation issue, I would modify your proposal that justices be age-limited and that the size of SCOTUS be fixed at nine. Instead I would go for a system in which the POTUS names two justices (confirmed as above) - and the size of SCOTUS would be fixed at 11 justices. Thus, in the long run justices would be term-limited at 22 years, and each presidential election would elect two SCOTUS justices as running mates (but of course, not expected to campaign) of the POTUS and VPOTUS.
In a single term a POTUS would replace 18% of the bench; a two-term POTUS would replace 36% of it. It takes an exceptional POTUS to see his sitting VP elected to replace him, which would mean that the same party named 54% of the high court. And realistically 22 years is a good run for even a Scalia. Fixing the number of justices at only nine, the term of each justice would be 18 years, which isn’t too bad - but a two-term POtUS would name about 45% of the justices and a the party of a successful VP would name 55% of them.
My system would, I hope, tend to produce more stability on the high court. Certainly more predictability.
It is probably too much to hope for, but the Republican majority in the senate could outlaw filibustering justices who had been named for the voters in advance, as in the case of Trump’s list.