To: Cincinatus' Wife
In 1788 when the constituting was ratified, the average life span was less than 60 years. In 1800 it was only 53 for males. So giving a life appointment didn't mean what it does today. We now have people on the bench for 40 years. That just wasn't possible when people on average only got to 53.
Having a SCOTUS justice stand for elections is a bad idea. Nor is having each president appoint the entire court. However an 18 year term with one judge up every other year, would ensure that no president could appoint more than half the justices, even if they got two terms. But it would help to keep the number of octogenarians off the court. If a judge retired or died in office a new judge would be appointed to fill out their term, hence maintaining the one every other year pattern.
49 posted on
09/02/2011 12:21:41 PM PDT by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: GonzoGOP
Quick question, name the three longest serving supreme court chief justices?
82 posted on
09/02/2011 1:02:00 PM PDT by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: GonzoGOP
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?
127 posted on
09/02/2011 3:14:20 PM PDT by
Anima Mundi
(I didn't say it was your fault. I said I am going to BLAME you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson