Joe Biden says yes in this proposed Supreme Court reform, which also includes an ethics code and ending immunity for former presidents. From the AP:
Biden is calling for doing away with lifetime appointments to the court. He says Congress should pass legislation to establish a system in which the sitting president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in service on the court. He argues term limits would help ensure that court membership changes with some regularity and adds a measure of predictability to the nomination process.
He also wants Congress to pass legislation establishing a code of ethics for justices that would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.
Biden also is calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s recent landmark immunity ruling that determined former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
The decision extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ended prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.
The last time Congress ratified an amendment to the Constitution was 32 years ago. The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, states that Congress can pass a bill changing the pay for members of the House and Senate, but such a change can’t take effect until after the next November elections are held for the House.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Monday, July 29, 2024
Should Supreme Court Justices have term limits?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes, all article III judges including the justices should have term limits. 10 years up or out for the District and Circuit judges. 15 years on SCOTUS. But, without looking it up to confirm, I think this would require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of Congress.
Yes, judges and justices should have to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves accordingly.
The country shouldn't have to pass an amendment on presidential immunity since it's not based on anything in the Constitution and SCOTUS just made it up out of whole cloth. But back to reality, yes, there should be an amendment clarifying that we live in a country of laws, where all men are equal, and no one (even POTUS) is above the law.
Admittedly, I have not clicked on the link for a full recap. But the excerpt doesn't make sense. You would need an amendment to do away with lifetime appointments - that is actually in the constitution.
Not so sure about that, it is interesting:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Why can’t congress establish a period that corresponds to “stated times” or “Continuance in Office”, for example, 18 years?
It seems like they already do by permitting judges to go senior under the rule of 85 or whatever it is.
Also, if they are to receive pay only during their “Continuance in Office”, why do they get paid at all when they go senior? I think the answer is because they are continuing in office. But I don’t see where it says lifetime tenure in the constitution.
Of course, the courts will be interpreting…so good luck.
@112 the "stated times" language refers to their pay period, not their term of office. So, like "on the first monday of the month," or "every other friday".
Regarding term limits, this sounds of sour grapes. It is only because some don't like the Supreme Court's rulings that all of a sudden they want to change the term of service on the Court. When rulings went their way, they had no problem with life time tenure. Reminds me of Roosevelt trying to "pack" the Court in the 1930s. That was received, to say the least, poorly. If certain groups want to influence the Court, they should win national elections.
As I recall “certain groups” won a national election in 2000 till the Supreme Court weighed it and handed the election to the other side. Term limits could temper the ambitions of justices who want to recreate the federal government to align with their views. Maybe they would not toss longstanding precedents aside if they knew others would soon be there to carry on the court’s work.
Post a Comment