US Supreme Court judges, age limits please!

[Trainwreck]

This one is just a pet peeve, we need age limits for this job, old geezers DO need to be forced to step down at some point.

My eldest grandpa was already a bit mentally out of it (to be kind) at 80.

They should not be STILL in a job this important IMHO, to be fair I think there should be a maximum working age, 80 year olds shouldn't have to work at all.

...end of rant...

>TW<

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
80 year olds shouldn't have to work at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't have to, they choose to.


I think they should expand the size of the court to say 13 justices. This would take off some of the pressure and focus on each replacement and allow them to expand their workload easily.

This could be done in a nonpartisan way: one new position for each of the next four Presidential terms.

[jcx]

As long as someone is of sound mind I don't care what their age is. I think the time for a set term (say 10 years) on the court has come. When the Constitution was written men were considered ancient if they saw the age of 60. With people now routinely living into their 80's and beyond you can get stuck with an unelected judicial tyrant for 30 years or more (depending on your point of view, this could be either Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Antonin Scalia). I don't believe this was the intention of the founding fathers.

So as not to grant too much power to one president, I would grandfather in the current justices and as they retire new appointees would be subject to the term limit, one term only. Could not all idealogies agree with this?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Constitution was written men were considered ancient if they saw the age of 60

[/ QUOTE ]

Age at death:
Washington: 67
Jefferson: 83
John Jay: 84
John Marshall: 80
John Adams: 91

Also, keep in mind that John Marshall was Chief Justice for 35 years. Hard to say that the current system isn't working as designed.

[jcx]

Yes, it seems that checking the history of the court, those bastards tended to live very long lives even in the early to mid 19th century. I still would support term limits though. The court has much more influence today since the government has encroached into so many areas of American life.

[SheetWise]

What we need to do is quit appointing lawyers. The idea that the Constitution is a dynamic living document scares the hell out of me. This last court finally stepped through the looking glass, and truly believed that words meant whatever they wanted them to mean.

[ptmusic]

I say yes to term limits, no to age limits. Some 80 year olds have fantastic minds. But no one should have 30+ years on the SC.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

Careful. Tinkering with the SC has not always worked so well in the past. Besides, you're going to need an amendment, which is going to be damn hard to get.

[elwoodblues]

With term limits, I think you'd be much more likely to see radical decisions by the court. Current justices realize that they might have to work with this same (or similar) group for a very long time. They are encouraged to try to work together. In addition, with life tenures they are likely to have a line of decisions that trend toward change as opposed to radical change (because they will want to push their ideals before being forced out.)

The Rehnquist court is an anomoly in that there are so many split decisions and not a lot of working together. Instead of having compromise/middle of the road decisions signed off by 9 justices, with the Rehnquist court you tend to have more extreme decisions which only require 5 votes. People who want idealogues (on either side of the aisle) on the court should realize that absent strong leadership you will likely see many decsions that are extreme...and it might only take one swing vote to have the extreme on the other side of the political spectrum win.

[andyfox]

What was troubling to me was Rehnquist's comment the other day, when asked if he was going to resign, of "that's for me to know and for you to find out." Assuming he was not just joking around, what kind of attitude is that? Is he not a public servant? Aren't we entitled to know?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we entitled to know?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He's got a lifetime appointment, he can retire when he wants. Why should he have to pre-announce?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of having compromise/middle of the road decisions signed off by 9 justices, with the Rehnquist court you tend to have more extreme decisions which only require 5 votes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Supreme Court makes decisions on the tough cases. There are hardly ever 9-0 decisions because the Court shouldn't have to tackle such an easy decision. That's what the lower courts are for.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
There are hardly ever 9-0 decisions because the Court shouldn't have to tackle such an easy decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here I thought from all the various posts on this forum, that there was little need to interpret the constitution. That it was clear cut on abortion, eminent domain, gun control, racial profiling, intellectual property, privace etc. Anyone who disagreed should be impeached or recalled or otherwise lambasted as idiots.

I dont find much ability to see both sides of these issues amongst most posters. There are notable exceptions -- these are almost all labelled with the pejorative du jour, a "liberal".

[andyfox]

Of course he can retire when he wants. But he works for us. We pay his salary. We should be informed about his professional plans.

[elwoodblues]

You can have controversial/difficult cases and still have fewere 5-4 decisions than the Rehnquist court. The lack of consensus building done by the leadership of this court is, I believe, noteworthy.

[ QUOTE ]
There are hardly ever 9-0 decisions because the Court shouldn't have to tackle such an easy decision

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at some historical court records in this regard and you'll see that the Rehnquist court is different. Do you really think it's because they are tacklng more difficult issues?

[ACPlayer]

Do you know of any systematic studies of the leadership of various chief justices?

I think I read somewhere that this Chief Justice has been in the minority more than most other chief justices as well. That he has been less successful in getting his own view point across to the other justices. Not sure of this though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he can retire when he wants. But he works for us. We pay his salary. We should be informed about his professional plans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, based on his remark, I think his professional plans are to retire when he's good and ready, and not a moment sooner.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he can retire when he wants. But he works for us. We pay his salary. We should be informed about his professional plans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What difference does it make if he tells you he's going to retire in 26 days? Do you need extra time to submit your replacement suggestions to Bush?

[andyfox]

Unless he was joking around with a reporter he's friendly with, the arrogance of the remark is troubling to me. I'll retire when I'm good and ready and when I decide to do maybe I'll let you know. Or maybe I won't.

He's a public servant. He's been ill. He's an octogenarian. There's speculation that he will retire soon. Why not do what a public servant should do and keep the public informed? Or at least not come across as arrogant by saying it's for me to know and for you to find out.

[[censored]]

perhaps he got tired of idiot reporters camping out front of his home only to ask a stupid question. Does the reporter think rehnquist is going to pass on telling The President in order to give him the scoop?

[andyfox]

"perhaps he got tired of idiot reporters camping out front of his home only to ask a stupid question."

I thinks that's evident in his attitude.

[PhatTBoll]

I think part of it is his frustration with the way the public and media have suddenly seized on the supreme court in recent years. I'm sure every time a reporter asks him if he's retiring, he thinks to himself, "Man, I'll bet William Howard Taft and John Marshall never had to put up with this bullshit." And it's true. For various reasons, a little bit of the mystique of the court has been wiped away, and I think it bothers him as an officer of the court, and as the guy in charge when it happened.

Also, it's entirely possible that he just didn't know yet when the reporter asked him.

[andyfox]

"I don't know yet."

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
He's a public servant. He's been ill. He's an octogenarian. There's speculation that he will retire soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why the public has a right to know if he might retire "soon." How soon? What (of substance) will change if he says tomorrow that he's retiring at the end of the week vs. waiting until Friday to say so? What if he says he's going to retire in two years? What if a week later he gets hit by a bus? Should he have disclosed that?

[PhatTBoll]

Honestly, he could have told the reporter to F off, and I wouldn't really care. He is not a politician; his duty is not to the public, but to the law.

[andyfox]

His duty is to the public and to the law. He's a public servant.

[andyfox]

He has a duty to be as forthright and honest as possible. If he doesn't know when he'll be retiring, or he's unsure, he can say, "I don't know," or "I'm unsure." This is not a national security issue where diclosing something might jeopardize our safety or well-being. He works for us.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
He has a duty to be as forthright and honest as possible. If he doesn't know when he'll be retiring, or he's unsure, he can say, "I don't know," or "I'm unsure."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how his duty extends to announcing his retirement before he's ready to. You're really being a nit about it. How "sure" does he have to be before he's no longer "just considering" retirement?

[andyfox]

He doesn't have to announce anything. He was asked a question. Saying "that's for me to know and for you to find out," unless he was kidding around, which he may have been, is the wrong attitude.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
What was troubling to me was Rehnquist's comment the other day, when asked if he was going to resign, of "that's for me to know and for you to find out." Assuming he was not just joking around, what kind of attitude is that? Is he not a public servant? Aren't we entitled to know?


[/ QUOTE ]

He owes you jack and you're entitled to a single sugar cookie with rainbow sprinkles.

[PhatTBoll]

But he is not answerable to the public in any meaningful way.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I read somewhere that this Chief Justice has been in the minority more than most other chief justices as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'd prefer a SC justice who thought for himself and didn't just go with the flow.

[ QUOTE ]
That he has been less successful in getting his own view point across to the other justices.

[/ QUOTE ]
True or not, this isn't the duty of the Chief Justice. It's not like a jury where they all get together and convince each other one way or the other. They each have their own values and views and should determine their decision based on them, not other's opinions.

Besides, if you guys wanted fewer 5-4 decisions, just let Bush appoint two (or more) conservative justices. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like a jury where they all get together and convince each other one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly how it is (except for the requirement of unanimity.)

[andyfox]

"He owes you jack and you're entitled to a single sugar cookie with rainbow sprinkles."

He evidently agrees with you.

[Broken Glass Can]

andy, are you offended that Bush has refused to reveal his nominee before tonight's speech? I mean he is being paid by us and should spill the beans right away.