Posted on 10/17/2005 7:36:01 AM PDT by Crackingham
Nowhere in the oath of office taken by Supreme Court justices does the phrase "until death do us part" appear. It just seems that way.
Justices today, on average, remain on the high court longer and retire at a more advanced age than ever before. Supreme Court justices now routinely serve a quarter-century or more. No justice has retired at an age younger than 75 since 1981 (when Potter Stewart stepped down at 66). The Soviet Politburo probably turned over faster. Which is why an informal band of prominent legal thinkers from left and right is challenging the Constitution's grant of lifetime tenure to Supreme Court justices. With life spans lengthening, and the court's members clinging so tenaciously to their robes, these critics want to limit justices to a single fixed term, usually set at 18 years. So far, no prominent politician has joined them. But the idea seems destined to generate more discussion as frustration in both parties mounts over the process of selecting and confirming Supreme Court nominees.
"I think there is a widespread feeling on both the right and the left that everything surrounding the Supreme Court and the appointment of its members is broken and needs to be fixed," said Northwestern University Law School professor Steven G. Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society and coauthor of a fixed-term proposal.
In a recent article, Calabresi and Northwestern colleague James Lindgren documented the tendency of justices to linger longer as the court's prestige and power have grown in the last decades.
From 1789, when the Supreme Court was established, through 1970, the average justice spent 14.9 years on the bench. The justices who have retired since 1970 served on the court an average of 26.1 years — nearly twice as long.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Let's start with the US Senate.
That Ginsborg sure looks ready for the scrap heap.
Ah, now I see. When conservatives finally are poised to take over the court, NOW we can't have "lifetime tenure." Sorry, Ronnie Brownnose. Them's the rules.
Yes, but she always has...nothing new here.
That plan would force Scalia out exactly 5 months from now.
Yep. These the same people who tried to get Congress to repeal the 22th Amendment so Xlinton can run for a third term.
Yes, but she always has...nothing new here.
Sadly true. In those old zombie movies didn't they say zombies can live forever?
WAAAAAHHHHHH! The Dems are crying because Bush might get to pick more justices in the next three years.
So they want to change the Constitution. That'll be their next litmus test for conservatives: Do you promise to resign after 10 years or at age 65, whichever comes first?
Term limits on elected and age limit on tenured.
elected 12 year, renewable term, renewable upon reelection.
3 classes of 3 each every 4 years, off-year elections.
Let's not pretend these are non-political people and appointments.
I agree with the comments here about liberal catterwalling. However, I think the point not addressed in the argument is life expectancy. The article says that average tenure has increased by rougly 10 years... well, so has our life expectancy.
Given life appointments, I would call this a "duh!".
And Justice Stevens died three years ago. Lenin's undertaker has been put on contract to keep Stevens looking good until a Democrat is elected.
No way should these posts be elected. That completely turns around the Founders intentions.
Fortunately these proposals are non starters.
The Founder's intentions are not being realized in the first place. The positions are political, and it is obvious.
Change the constitution.
That, too, was part of the Founder's legacy. They gave an amendment process.
(Although, I think the amending process itself should be amended....3/4th is too great a hurdle, imo.)
While the RATS may be politicizing the process and thwarting the Founders' intent we need not scrap their work because of them. This is far down the list of things which should be amended. It should be headed with the 14th.
Making Justices into some sort of Super Senator would be a very bad idea.
I far prefer super-Senator, to "Your Imperial, Oligarchic Excellency."
Amend the constitution.
The Founders allow for amending.
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.