Leahy: Allow retired justices to sit on SCOTUS

Washington Times - Water Cooler ^ | 9/29/10 | Kerry Picket

[paltz]

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow for retired Supreme Court Justices to sit on the court by designation in cases where the active justice has recused. READ THE BILL

Under the proposed bill, the active justices of the Supreme Court would be permitted to vote to designate a retired Supreme Court justice in a particular case in which one or more Justices have recused themselves and allow the court to preempt potential 4:4 split decisions, in which the decision of a lower court stands.

[rockinqsranch]

Leahy is just a very clever by two fellow isn’t he. I’d bet he gets up in the morning Singin’ “I love Leahy in the morning’, EVERY mornin’ of the year.....” he’s so clever.

[The Pack Knight]

Did Leahy not take Constitutional Law in law school? Georgetown ought to demand his J.D. back.

[oldleft]

[The Pack Knight]

At the time the Constitution was ratified, service "during good Behavior" was long understood to mean service for life or until removed by the legislature for some misbehavior.

This language (which originates from the Latin quamdiu se bene gesserint) comes directly from the British Act of Settlement of 1701, the document which allowed the House of Hanover to succeed William and Mary and one of the most important documents in establishing Britain's constitutional monarchy. The "good behavior" provision sought to secure judicial independence from royal manipulation by permitting judges to serve for life and to be removed only by Parliament.

This same language was also used to define judicial terms in the Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions of 1776, and at that time, as always, the term was understood to mean essentially "for life". During the ratifying debate, appointment of judges "during good behavior", as opposed to for a shorter term, was frequently cited as a means of protecting judicial independence.

[bmwcyle]

Stroke of the pen, law of the land. They will kill the Constitution if we don’t stop them.

[Gapplega]

Retired? aren’t they all near death by the time they slink off the bench anyway? Has Ginsberg’s pancreatic cancer metastasized yet?

[The Pack Knight]

What part of NINE doesn’t he understand? And what part of RETIRED doesn’t he understand?

My first reaction was also that this was unconstitutional, but after thinking about it, I realize that it probably isn't.

First, the Constitution doesn't set the size of the Supreme Court; Congress sets the size by law.

Second, retired Supreme Court justices already assume judicial functions that normally require Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. They are currently permitted by statute (28 U.S.C. § 294) to assume any judicial duties in any circuit assigned by the Chief Justice, including service as a "circuit justice" who may sit on the Court of Appeals and is senior even to the Chief Judge of that Court.

So retired justices are already permitted to serve in the capacity of circuit judges, who are appointed in the same manner as Supreme Court justices and have the same term of office as a Supreme Court justice.

When you consider that that is constitutional, then it is actually hard to see why Leahy's proposal is not.

[RoadDogg]

Don’t too be surprised; we are talking about the same jackass who wants the internet to be regulated in the US the same way they do it in China and Iran:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

[Hoodat]

I’m still trying to find out why Patrick Leahy isn’t in jail for leaking classified information which jeopardized the lives of our servicemen.

[RedMDer]

He looks like a great candidate to get Leahy out! Its all in play! Please contribute to defeat Leaky!

Len Britton

http://www.lenbritton.com/

[excopconservative]

Just what we need- justice shopping on the SCOTUS!

[LayoutGuru2]

Sure thing. Shouldn't take much more than an amendment to the Constitution.

Exactly!!!

[tutstar]

gnip

[personalaccts]

maybe he needs to go back to VT and snort syrup

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks!

[GreyFriar]

Just another way to “Pack the Court” like FDR tried to do. I agree with Welly’s statement. Additionally, it is not provided for in the CONSTITUTION, you know, the document that is irrelevant to Obamarx and his Democratic-Socialist-Progressive Party.

[Postman]

NFW!! to the third power....at the least.

[Postman]

Probably one of several random utterances while straining on the commode.

[Republican Wildcat]

Under the proposed bill, the active justices of the Supreme Court would be permitted to vote to designate a retired Supreme Court justice in a particular case in which one or more Justices have recused themselves and allow the court to preempt potential 4:4 split decisions, in which the decision of a lower court stands.

And what if that vote was also 4-4? Which under the current make up of the court, it would be - 4 for O'Connor, 4 for Souter. It would make the court much more political in nature to try to put a retired justice of a certain ideology on the bench to swing the decision a certain way. Awful idea.

[infowarrior]

Leahy is a disgrace, but it’s likely some smart-ass intern thought of this scheme. Leahy strikes me as an old drunken dolt.

Point one: Yes...

Point two: Undoubtedly some young smart-a** intern who has a degree in "International Relations" or such like. Obviously not one who studied either American history, or Constitutional law...

Point three: Strikes me the same way...

the infowarrior