Amazon.com Widgets

Term limits for Supreme Court justices: Are term limits for Supreme Court justices a good idea?

  • Yes, absolutely, but not term limits

    A better way, in my view, is to have mandatory retirement ages for Justices. Many other nation-states have retirement ages for Justices written into their Constitution, such as: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, etc.

    Having mandatory retirement ages is middle ground because imposing term limits and maintaining life tenure. If you have term limits, then it's predicable as to when and who will be able to appoint Chief Justices; whereas mandatory retirement age depends on how old the person appointed is.

    Most countries have 70 years as the stipulated retirement age; so if the US had this provision, at least 4 of the current Justices would've already retired. Mandatory retirement ages means that Justices won't hold on to the seats based on what is politically expedient or preferable. An example of this is the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's over 80 years old and refuses to retire because she's not confident that the current President won't be able to appoint a suitable successor. The office of Justice is not supposed to be political.

  • Term limits for Supreme Court justices are a good idea.

    Lifetime tenure for supreme court justices are not a good idea. Even if a justice is old and demented, they can still remain on the bench indefinitely. There should be term limits so that new justices can bring fresh ideas to the court. Too many old judges prevent the court from making rulings that are in touch with contemporary society.

  • Times change, and so should Supreme Court Justices.

    Our country has come a long way, and in such a short time. Cultural values and accepted practices change. However, if we allow supreme court justices to serve for an extended period of time, they may not be understanding of the new accepted practices. This could potentially lead to important, progressive rulings being shut down, because our justices don't want to accept change.

  • Term limits won't accomplish anything.

    Limiting a justices term will cause them to try to accomplish their political goals in a much shorter time frame. This will lead to justices making corrupt decision as soon as they get on the bench. All that term limits accomplish is getting the experienced judges off the bench and replacing them with inexperienced judges who are equally corrupt. One last augment we don't want judges who are in touch with contemporary society. As David Harsanyi said in his article
    entitled (No, Supreme Court Justices Don’t Need Term Limits) "It is pretty clear, though, that through lifetime appointments, the Founders wanted to shield judges from the political pressures of the day. But an excellent byproduct of having ancient, long-serving justices is that they are far more likely to be impervious to the fleeting populist bugaboos and contemporary preferences that drive Ornstein’s cause. This should be about the long game. Justices may be bewildered by technology, but on the bright side, some of them still believe that protecting free speech is more vital to a liberal state than sticking it to some plutocratic oilmen". Term limits will turn the supreme court into another political branch of government that interprets the constitution as they see fit.

  • No way Jose

    This is not a good idea at all. No good could come from this in anyway. I believe that the Supreme Court should have even more justices and should serve for life regardless of whether they want to be in the Supreme Court or not. Really super big dumb idea.

  • No way Jose

    This is not a good idea at all. No good could come from this in anyway. I believe that the Supreme Court should have even more justices and should serve for life regardless of whether they want to be in the Supreme Court or not. Really super big dumb idea.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.