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?