Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry wants term limits on high court [favors change in Constitution]
Charlotte Observer ^ | September 1, 2011 | Todd J. Gillman The Dallas Morning News

Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.

One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure - a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure.

The idea isn't original, and it's not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long.

It began to percolate in the 1980s and '90s after a series of bruising Senate confirmation fights, although it's never gained much traction. A handful of bills and proposed constitutional amendments have been filed in Congress in recent years to little effect. But Perry's embrace of the idea, combined with his states' rights principles, may demonstrate how he would push as president to change the balance of power in the federal government.

Perry, in his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!," derides the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes" and writes: "We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability."

Perry devotes an entire chapter to his indictment of the judiciary. The proposal to eliminate life tenure is barely a footnote, but that's enough to inspire sharp passions.

"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn't because he's looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."

Perry's stance is remarkable in the sense that presidents have long viewed the power to shape the judiciary as one of the prizes that comes with winning the White House.

That's why the stakes are so high and the fights so fierce when a rare Supreme Court vacancy arises. It's a key reason President George W. Bush picked a 50-year-old conservative, John Roberts, as chief justice, planting seeds of a legacy that could persist for decades longer than his own presidency. And it's unclear if more frequent confirmation fights would insulate the judiciary or make it even more politicized.

At Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, president Nan Aron noted that five of nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.

Railing against the judiciary is an effective way for Perry to attract conservative voters, she said, but "I don't know that he's fully thought that through. ... He would want his judges to serve for life."

Paul Carrington, a Duke University law professor and former dean who has led the effort to impose term limits, agreed that the current system breeds arrogance.

He called it "nuts" to let octogenarians run the country. "It's ridiculous to have a person sitting in a position of that much power for 30 or 40 years," he said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: amnesty; corporatewelfare; laraza; openborders; perry; perry2012; perrytalk; perrytards; porkulus; rinofreeamerica; rinoperry; rinothinking; scotus; scotusping; statesrights; supremecourt; termlimits; texican; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife

Impeachment.


101 posted on 09/02/2011 1:28:59 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Seems to me that conservatives don’t think far into the future. What sounds good under a republican dominated government can bite you hard under a democrat led government.”

That’d be a valid point if Republicans controlled Congress. Since they don’t, I don’t know where you’re coming from.


102 posted on 09/02/2011 1:29:16 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I support that for the Legislative and Executive branches. I just don’t know how I feel about it for the senior areas of the Judiciary. They must be free from political interference.


103 posted on 09/02/2011 1:32:30 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Agree 100%.


104 posted on 09/02/2011 1:38:00 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I just read this on wikipedia - so take it with the necessary grain of salt.

Reduction of infant mortality has accounted for most of this increased average longevity, but since the 1960s mortality rates among those over 80 years have decreased by about 1.5% per year.

105 posted on 09/02/2011 1:38:32 PM PDT by colorcountry (Comforting lies are not your friends. Painful truths are not your enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

You don’t think their appointments and confirmations are “political”?


106 posted on 09/02/2011 1:39:09 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I meant that their ability to make rulings shouldn’t be interfered with by politicians or voters. Certainly, their appointments are based on political ideology.


107 posted on 09/02/2011 1:43:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

That would fix nothing.

That would not guarantee a better appointee as a replacement.

The cure for bad SCOTUS justices lies with electing Constitutionalist Presidents, not with changing the system of their selection or their term.

Opportunities for “change” on the court can work against Conservatives as easily as for us. It is no panacea.

Anyone interested in putting Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts up for replacement, by law, before end of Obama’s term? No? But you would place that burden on some future situation?

I won’t.

I WILL

always work for Presidents to appoint judges with respect for the written Constitutions and ITS MANDATES for limited government.


108 posted on 09/02/2011 1:43:59 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

HELL NO!

On this one, leave the Constitution alone.


109 posted on 09/02/2011 1:44:58 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How would term limits affect their rulings?


110 posted on 09/02/2011 1:44:58 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Lifespans have greatly increased since 1776. I think one 20 year term is more than enough time for anyone on the court


111 posted on 09/02/2011 1:45:41 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
More Perry ignorance of the Constitution
112 posted on 09/02/2011 1:46:42 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user

Wrong, it is stupid to waste the time talking about it,. But it does show a complete like of understanding about what it takes to amend the Constitution on amnesty Perry’s part. Think about the problems the country has, we will be long broke by spending before a change to the Constitution would pass the states.


113 posted on 09/02/2011 1:53:09 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sargon

I’m against it. A Supreme Court justice could always be removed via Impeachment if there was some kind of compelling reason which the Congress felt existed.


How did the Clinton impeachment work out?


114 posted on 09/02/2011 1:55:00 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The real problem with the supreme court is the fact that our “moderates” will confirm any marxist moron the democrats want.


115 posted on 09/02/2011 2:00:02 PM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a Permenant Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution...”

If you follow that line of logic then the Constitution would never be amended, even though the Founding Fathers provided us with 2 methods of having the Constitution amended.


116 posted on 09/02/2011 2:03:30 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
That is the problem, the old rino fix, when a democrap has an appointment, they say the president deserves, etc, etc, when a republican has an appointment they say we must reach across the isles.
117 posted on 09/02/2011 2:04:47 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ops33

We do follow that logic how many time has it been amended.


118 posted on 09/02/2011 2:06:16 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Sounds like a good idea but it should apply to federal judges as well. The framers thought justices would put Constitutional principles above the politics. They weren't naive but I don't think they ever envision the political activism from the courts as you have today. When courts rule that you can't cut taxes in favor of union pensions there are some big issues with our courts.

There is nothing wrong with term limits-including politicians.

119 posted on 09/02/2011 2:08:15 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Anyone who believes that the original constitution should go UNAMENDED is totally off their rocker. Amendments are warranted when necessary otherwise slavery would still be legal. I totally respect the founding fathers but they were not fortune tellers. Amendments are pretty hard to get approved - as it should be - and some are definitely warranted. Let the people decide! An unamended constitution represents dictatorship, pure and simple. This is America - everything is up for discussion.


120 posted on 09/02/2011 2:10:09 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson