Op-Ed: Why the Supreme Court needs 18-year term limits https://t.co/cg3ETaqNMk pic.twitter.com/KMTAvATlmL

Los Angeles Times  (@latimes) July 20, 2017

"This level of speculation, fear and dramatic suspense over when any single public official retires is a sign that the stakes of Supreme Court appointments are simply too high. To lower the stakes – and attending dysfunction – of each court appointment, both parties would do well to consider a scheme put forward by two Northwestern University law professors.

In a 2006 paper for the Harvard Law Review, Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren proposed that Supreme Court justices should serve 18-year terms, with a new judge appointed every two years. Each president would effectively get to nominate two justices for every term in office, and the Senate would agree to promptly consider them on a regular schedule.

The sitting court would be composed of the nine most recent appointees. More senior judges would continue receiving full pay and would sit as judges on lower federal appellate courts or back on the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy or recusal. The plan has the advantage of potentially being achievable by statute, rather than requiring a constitutional amendment.

Of course, a justice might unexpectedly die, retire, resign or be impeached. But for the most part, Supreme Court appointments would become more quotidian, like other executive or judicial nominations. The public, the press and Congress would know what to expect and when to expect it. Such a system would also eliminate the “tyranny of the young,” whereby presidents seek to appoint the youngest possible justices in a calculated effort to further their legacies for the greatest number of decades. New voices and ideas could more easily populate the court, and brilliant, innovative judges wouldn’t be sidestepped for being too old. The frequency of appointments might allow presidents to experiment a little, perhaps by appointing a trial judge or a politician. It might also encourage minority parties and interest groups to limit their cries of impending doom.

The Constitution’s Article III has long been interpreted to grant judges life tenure. But the text actually has some leeway. It states that judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” and receive “a compensation, which shall not be diminished” while in office. The rest of the Supreme Court’s structure, and what it means to “hold” the “office” of a Supreme Court justice, is left to Congress.

But life expectancy today is a full 30 years greater than it was in 1789. In the country’s first 200 years, the average Supreme Court justice served for 15 years; Kennedy is creeping up on 30. Gorsuch, fit and 49 years old, could serve for the next 35 years or more."

Never gonna work because the dems would just stall the repubs nominations indefinitely and then get to nominate 4.  

I think a good  place to start term limitations is with justices who can't do their job anymore.   For example staying awake during work hours. That should be a no brainer.

"Oh, a Republican is in the White House, we need 18 year SCJ term limits!!"

Any peeps during Democrat leadership? Of fucking course not, and I bet that they'd start screeching again if this idea results in a lack of 'liberal' justices appointed... due to, you know, pressure from the populace twice every 18 years. Think Democrats want to risk 'their' seats to appointing some sleazebag activist SCJ?

lulz

We are close to having SC 7-2 conservative , they are fucked and they know it.

Liberal thought is an exercise in hypocrisy.

Times up.  Renew.

They know they are screwed

and

it's wonderful...............

There should be a basic fitness for duty test across many jobs.  Nothing too hard, but a comprehension of english, math, history, and relavant job related KSAs...plus whatever level of fitness is required.  

This would weed out a ton of low performers.

I'm sure they'd be calling for this if FHRC was president

LA times

The LAT is nearly bankrupt

Ok, but we kick off all Justices already over 18 years right now and Trump names replacements, with no bitching. Deal?

LIMIT SENATE AND CONGRESS TERMS FIRST.

"New voices and ideas could more easily populate the court, and brilliant, innovative judges wouldn’t be sidestepped for being too old."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe the SCOTUS is about "new voices" and "innovation".  It's there to interpret the words and meaning of a 200-year-old document, not come up with ways to twist its intent to better fit the political leanings of our time.

This too.

20 Years of Federal Service. Maximum.

You can do 8 as President and 12 in the Senate, but that's it.

Or 20 in the House, but no moving up.

LATimes Op-Ed? The rantings of a desperate loon.

Stupid words from stupid people that only exist because even dumber people give them an audience.

I have a better idea: eat shit and grab your ankles commies, we're going in dry:

Attached File

It's glorious

Instead we should limit Ginsberg to 18 more weeks.

Instead of term limits how about requiring all judges be actual judges first with an established history of decisions.

That way you can't get nominated just for say being a solicitor general or for being a buddy of the potus.

I've been saying this for years, but how do you get people that vote on their own pay raises to voluntarily put the brakes on the gravy train?

Term limits aren't just stupid and ineffectual; they are counterproductive and even downright harmful as well.  Sadly, they are the most likely thing to make it as a constitutional amendment, but it would be to the detriment of this country, and the track record of term limits is extensive and more than enough to demonstrate the fact.

Indeed.

lol.

Let the butt hurt flow.

I really hope trump ensures that SC justices have 24/7 secret service protection.  Otherwise Hillary/ etc can just murder them all when it's time for a democrat to take over.  Before you laugh just how many people have the Clintons had murdered?  And then Scalia dying strangely with a pillow over his head.  Coincidence? 

Re-spawn ability.....denied.

Kagan and Sotomayor shouldn't even be there.

Good idea (not really [/sarcasm] and we'll start right away:  anyone who's been there longer than 18 years, raise your hand.

Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer:  bye, bye.

President Trump, you have a few appointments to make.

Is there ANYTHING dumber than a libtard?

And they're well past their 18 year First Amendment license expiry date.

I'm OK with that as long as they start with term limits in Congress and Senate.

Ya took the words right outta my mouth.   I was just thinking, "Yeah, lemme guess, you'd say the same thing during a Dummycrap administration, wouldn't you?" *crickets*

Oooooh, I like this soooo much!   "Oh, so Supremes should only have an 18 year term?  Hey, about your unlimited First Amendment..."

Come on, Ginsberg....

I'm sure they would have published this if Clinton won the election lol

This.   They are afraid.  Very afraid

Pass an amendment dickstain!!! Otherwise STFU!!

Tyranny of the young?

Horseshit.

The capital is an old folks home

Lol. If SCOTUS was majority lib effs the article would read a little differently I imagine

Jesus that is stupid. Life appointments were for a reason.

I'll give them credit for one thing, they stuck with commissioning a poll there the polling method (polling the same 400 people during the course of the campaign) predicted Trump winning or well within the MOA when all other polls showed Trump behind and below the MOA. They took a lot of heat from libtards both internally and externally for that.

The LA Time /USC Dornsife poll was the only poll from a major paper that had it right from the get-go.

lol no.

The idea is retarded no matter which side of the ideological spectrum brings it up.

I look forward to many more years of Gorsuch rulings.

Fucking lunatics.

Go on... I'm all ears.