Because we've been so well served by the octogenarian clown posse.
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.
Because we've been so well served by the octogenarian clown posse.
So what was the conservative position on Prohibition? Was it conservative to change the constitution and deny people the ability to drink?
Or was it conservative to change the constitution later, and not “conserve” the constitution?
Or is it being liberal to both ban drinking and ban the ban on drinking?
Dude, that’s awesome.
But much too cruel.
One scenario off the top of my head ...
Suppose the end of a term is coming up. A justice/judge is young enough to need to continue working after his term. A controversial ruling is coming up. The justice considers how the ruling will affect his job prospects - or - he is outright promised a prestigious position if he rules a particular way.
Then you have a corrupt justice and that same corrupt justice would take under-the-table payments and favors during a lifetime appointment too.
Absolutely and whole-heartedly agree. Another Freeper had this organization in his/her tagline. I’m considering changing mine to put it in. This is a good site for those interested in what we have mentioned:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
As you said, this situation is ridiculous. The apportionment nonsense would be virtually halted overnight. It’s hard to gerrymander 30l people. And even harder to buy off all the reps, especially when they’re not all galavanting in Washington D.C. with their staffers.
It seems like it would be good to consider all of the age requirements in light of the expanded life span and in light of the delayed maturity. Perhaps it is time to raise the age at which someone can be a Senator or the President, which might lessen the clinton style escapades too.Norm everything to average life span. Should 18 year olds be considered “children” for healthcare, but “adults” for voting?
fool
Hmmm...not sure I like this idea AT ALL! I have said that if Sarah doesn’t run that I will support Perry, but this kind of stuff gives me pause.
This is one I could never support.
The core issue with Judges is the elected branches of government...they don't value adherence to the Constitution. The core issue with the elected branches of government is US...the electorate.
The Constitution is just fine.
Thanks for the link. You should compose a vanity on it.
OUTSTANDING thread! Thanks to all posters.
Of course he wants term limits for the SC. It’s not liberal enough for him the way it is.
So you think a justice could be bribed with a job? Do you think they can be bribed under current situations? I am pretty sure really good lawyers can make way more than justices. And I’m pretty sure a former SCJ could make a lot of money in private practice. Should there be a mandatory retirement age or should we wait until they’re senile before removing them from the court?
Well there's a reasoned argument.
its not an argument. fool.
You've grown tiresome. Get bent.
And enjoy 30 years of decisions from the "wise latina" and Kagan.
get bent fool
Offset by 30 years of Scalia and Thomas. These things tend to even out.
How many justices, appointed by Republicans, have turned into total libs over time? Conversely, do you imagine Kagan or Sotomayor will become more conservative over time? We have had some good conservatives appointed, but the result has been a tenuous, at best, holding action from a relentless left-ward tilt.
Right now, every controversial case depends on which way Kennedy will flop, as we wait for Obamacare to wend its way to the Supreme Court. How did the fundamental liberties of 310 million people become dependent on the whims of one black-robed lawyer?
I understand the intent of the Framers when they set up the Supreme Court, but I think the reality is that the Court has become entirely too powerful with no accountability to anyone.
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.