dagblog - Comments for "Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices"

Term limits,

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:57:36 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Term limits, sure.

De-professionalizing the court, I'm not so sure about. It's not the complexity that concerns so much as respect for legal practice and commitment to legal norms. The current court is certainly politicized, but the judges are unlikely to openly flout precedent or ignore the opinion of the legal establishment. Their background acts as a sort of damper on radical rulings.

Why would we want to dampen radical rules? Don't think about the justices you would like to see. Think about the ones you would not like to see. The Harriet Myers case offers an excellent example. The ABA's rejecting of her professional qualifications helped prevented a Bush toady from ascending to the highest bench. Another unqualified judge I worry about is a guy like Roy Moore, who is about to return to Alabama's highest court courtesy of the voters. As long the country values legal acumen and expertise in our justices, we can at least weed out the worst of the lot.

Perhaps you should pick up a

Beetlejuice — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:49:51 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Perhaps you should pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers. They were written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay to argue why the Constitution was necessary and a better document than the Articles of Confederation. Think of it as the owners manual for the Constitution. They go into depth explaining the why that the Constitution just touches on. I'm slowly reading it and all I've gather is they were using a lot of history of failures to illustrate why the Constitution would float in a sea of turmoil. There may be some grain of rationale why the Court has unlimited terms buried in those essays.

I hereby render unto Donal

Richard Day — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:43:14 +0000

In reply to Every ten years the justices

I hereby render unto Donal the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site; given to all of him from all of me! ha

diagnosis of dementia When

jollyroger — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:05:43 +0000

In reply to Not only do I endorse term

diagnosis of dementia

When it's time for gramps to hang up the keys...

There's several outfits from

jollyroger — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:02:34 +0000

In reply to I can see a sort of Survivor

There's several outfits from Mad Max that would really pimp Thomas out proper...

I can see a sort of Survivor

jollyroger — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:01:19 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

I can see a sort of Survivor reality show, where each year all nine go thru immunity challenges, etc, and then one gets vote off.

Nine judges enter, eight judges leave...

Not only do I endorse term

Aunt Sam — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:52:47 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Not only do I endorse term limits, but also age limits, as well as a mandate put in place that all medical records be annually reviewed - if diagnosis of dementia or other like illnesses are advised, they must resign.

Why have any personal terms

EmmaZahn — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:59 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Why have any personal terms at all. Why not select judges for courts sessions and cases by sortition (like juries) from a pool of qualified candidates who want to be picked (unlike most juries). Any controversial or otherwise landmark cases might need a bit more filtering.

Not that there isn't merit to Donal's suggestion as well, but

(No subject)

Michael Maiello — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:28:18 +0000

In reply to Every ten years the justices

Every ten years the justices

Donal — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:14:23 +0000

In reply to Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Every ten years the justices should be forced to fight to the death until only three are left. Then, lower court judges will fight to the death to fill the four empty places.