Show of HandsShow of Hands

credo November 12th, 2019 6:04pm

Should we term limit supreme court justices?

14 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

PamGH Washington
11/12/19 11:29 pm

Yang supports 16 yr term limits

Reply
bringstheeagle Colorado
11/12/19 12:59 pm

Just the conservatives 😊

Reply
MrMilkdud
11/12/19 12:11 pm

I prefer the absence of predictable turnover in the Supreme Court.

Reply
Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 11:38 am

no.

Supreme Court Justices need to be concentrated on the law and how the law is interpreted they do not need to be concentrating on getting reelected or politics in general.

Reply
suppressedID keep Summer safe
11/12/19 11:43 am

⬆️⬆️⬆️THIS

omniku dot com
11/12/19 12:47 pm

What if there’s no “re-election”? They get one, single 18-year term and then they’re done.

.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 1:02 pm

🤔

That's a good question offhand I would say 18 years is not long enough but you do have a good point none the less.

credo Positive Rights Exist
11/12/19 1:17 pm

Omniku is thinking more like I am, not making them elected but making it not a lifetime position so we don't get people sitting on the court for 40-50 years.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 1:19 pm

That's exactly what I'm trying to say though it's those long-term positions that we need the 50 and 60 year positions.

For a judge to only be in a term for 18 years is relatively short we need judges to understand the law which is not an easy thing to do. Especially when it's your job to interpret it and make case law.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 1:20 pm

As it pertains to an individual human being 18 years is substantial.
But looking at the lifespan of a law, 18 years is miniscule.

TierasPet
11/12/19 1:48 pm

Those are all good points. My concern would be what they do when they are done serving a term, be at 18 or 25 years. I think that would need to be limited as well or there is a potential for it to influence decisions. It's a tough one.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 1:53 pm

🤔 again a great point I overlooked..


if I understand you correctly, your talking about influences towards the end of their term. Decisions made that could have some sort of conflict of interest as it pertains to their career after the fact.
is that round about what you were thinking ?

omniku dot com
11/12/19 1:57 pm

Rob, so what? Laws outlive justices and their tenures all the time. They don’t need to sit on the court to keep laws in place.

This site (and justice Breyer) make compelling arguments...

fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

fixthecourt.com/2019/04/breyer-says-he-supports-18-year-terms-for-supreme-court-justices/

.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 1:59 pm

no, that not what I meant, it's not the stability of the laws that are created that I'm concerned about, it's the stability of the judge.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 2:00 pm

(no blame to you for not understanding what I ment. that falls on me and my lazy grammar)

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 2:02 pm

@omniku, may I ask what YOUR main concern is with life time appointments?

TierasPet
11/12/19 2:03 pm

Rob, I was actually thinking it could influence decisions throughout their whole term. Lecturing or teaching after serving would be fine but lobbying or running for office would not be. Those are the best examples I could come up with off the top of my head.

Robert0111 Oscar Romeo
11/12/19 2:21 pm

alright that makes sense to me.
thanks.