Absolutely not, I believe term limits give more power to lobby groups. If voters every two to six years feel their Congressional representation is doing well why should they be punished by term limits. I'd rather we open the door to Congressional Recalls for House and Senate members.
Incumbents have huge advantages naturally (voter recognition, experience to point to, pork projects passed, the machine behind them, etc, etc. so term limits are much more likely to result in the will of the people being heard.
I do believe we need checks on the Supreme Court and whether that be a term limit or a Presidential review every four years, off cycle of the Presidential election, either works.
Term limits work well for unelected positions. Judges are a perfect example of that.
And if they're fine voting in a dementia sufferer because they recognize her name on the ballot? That's the biggest problem currently is uninformed voters just keep voting the same people in. Not because they like what they're doing but because they recognize the name.
The voters choose their representative, but the parties put who is on the ticket. I'm not a fan of Bobert but her district voted her into office twice. That's on them. If they vote in Mickey Mouse then they live with that choice.
The problem with term limits for the Court is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. And in the current environment it would be impossible to get an amendment through. One party operates on a political platform of spite, and now that Nancy Pelosi has come out in favor of it there is zero chance of an amendment getting enough support to happen.
Expansion is a possibility, though, because it's well established that the size of the Court is set by Congress. If Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency, it may be worth nuking the Filibuster for. Only after expanding the the Court do you go to Republicans and say "Do you want to work with us on an amendment for term limits for Justices, or do you want Joe Biden to nominate 4 judges to life terms all at once?"
AFAIK, the Constitution does not state that Supreme Court Justices have life terms. It is vague and has been interpreted to maybe mean life terms but it doesn't explicitly say that.
Expansion is dumb. Then everytime one party is in control and the supreme court is leaning the other way they will expand it. Sooner or later everyone will be a supreme court justice.
The number of judges has been changed by Congress quite a few times for various reasons.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.
The best justification I've seen for a specific number that's not pulled out of thin air is to set the number the same as the number of federal appellate courts, currently 12, with each Justice essentially overseeing an appellate circuit. This is something they already do, but it is no longer a 1:1 ratio with only 9 Justices.
That's exactly what the actual policy on ties is. Last decision from the lower court stands, but does not set a precedent.
No matter how many justices you set up on the court, you have to have a policy on ties. But I think with an odd number you do a lot to reduce the frequency of tied decisions.
It would be great, but it's only part of the story. Judicial appointments should not be the poltical show that they are. It's too late to turn that ship around easily, and impossible without both sides of the aisle agreeing to it.
But becoming a judge should not be poltical at all. As long as they are it's a problem that won't be solved with just term limits
I think with Dobbs and the recent corruption scandals, this discussion is becoming more accepted by people. She doesn’t go to the floor without the votes.
Add comment