I like the spirit of that challenge; we dont need long-winded amendments in the Constitution.
So I think best that each newly elected and inaugurated POTUS install one or two, I think two, SCOTUS justices. And try to rig/incent the system so that early retirements/deaths on the bench are unlikely. Fixed terms for justices not exceeding 22 years seems to fit that bill.
- I firmly believe that its
just asmore important to fix the number of sitting justicesasthan it is to fix the term (not term limits, we are speaking of the duration of a single term) which the justices serve. We dont want any court packing going on. Not even a whisper about it. That conceit should be made a dead letter.
- The math I used earlier applies if you want each presidential election to matter to SCOTUS as much - and no more than - its predecessors and its successors. We have been lucky that some of the worst presidents have named the fewest SCOTUS justices. It might go differently in the future. The bad news has been that confirmation by the Senate always was an obstacle to the seating of good justices. As long as the Senate isnt in hostile hands, Trump is doing OK because of the Reid Rule. I hope Reid cringes at every mention of that. He went out of his way to deserve it.
Bottom line is that you can say,
Each newly elected POTUS names two SCOTUS justices upon inauguration.That takes court packing off the table, establishes a fixed number of justices named by the winner of each presidential election, and fixes the term of each justice at 22 years. Whats so complicated about that?
The most senior justices must retire as necessary to hold the number of SCOTUS justices at eleven.
It does that - but it phases them in. Thats the reason not to just state the 22 year term explicitly.
Nothing, your “summary” and “bumper sticker makes sense.
Notwithstanding the fact that we just increased the cost of the Supreme Court by several million but what the heck in a multi trillion dollar money machine.