Editorial: Eighteen (years) is enough: Limit the terms of Supreme Court justices

  • 📰 latimes
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 71 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Qulity Score:
  • News: 32%
  • Publisher: 82%

Editorial: Eighteen (years) is enough: Limit the terms of Supreme Court justices (via latimesopinion)

United States Headlines News

United States Latest News, United States Headlines

Court-packing is a terrible idea. And if a Democratic Congress expanded the Supreme Court to influence its rulings, what would prevent a future Republican Congress and president from following suit?

have joined in proposing that justices — who now serve for life unless they choose to retire — be appointed instead to fixed terms. The most popular proposal would provide for an 18-year term.Fixed terms would have several advantages. They would prevent justices from serving past their prime or clinging to their positions in an attempt to ensure that a president they trust will appoint their successors. Fixed terms also would expand the pool of potential nominees to include seasoned lawyers.

A proposal for 18-year terms favored by the reform group Fix the Court would allow a president to make two Supreme Court nominations during a four-year term. Most recent presidents have appointed at least two justices, but the frequency of appointments has varied. For example, Richard Nixon appointed four justices in his first term; Jimmy Carter didn’t get the chance to appoint any.

Congress arguably has the power to force the shift to fixed terms. The Constitution says that federal judges “shall hold their offices during,” a provision generally interpreted as conferring life tenure. But Congress wouldn’t necessarily violate that provision if it passed a statute barring justices from spending more than 18 years of their life tenure on the Supreme Court, reassigning them after that to lower courts — where retired Supreme Court justices have already heard cases on occasion.

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 11. in US
 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

opinion I think the founding fathers were smarter than you.

opinion Hahahahaha

opinion Let’s limit congress first. Then we can talk about judges.

opinion Agreed and for congress as well.

opinion If Supreme Court terms are limited to 18 years, why not limit Senate and Congressional terms to 18 years? The President is already limited to 2 terms (8 years) or 10 years if s/he assumes the office.

opinion If you are the retirement age. You shouldnt be in politics. You arent thinking about the future of our country because you wont be apart of it. DrainTheSwamp

opinion Lifetime is too long and unpredictable. Make it 16 years. Span two presidents.

opinion How about the public postings of IQ and civics test scores for people who run for Senate seats instead?

opinion I say limit the terms of Mitch McConnell...that would be a better start ....

opinion Whomever wrote this opinion has clue as to why there are no term limits for justices and should go back to junior high. That’s where I learned it.

opinion Let’s go dinosaur. Stop holding things up

opinion How about term limits for Speakers of the House ? Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the Supreme Court !!!!

opinion How about limiting the terms of Senitors as well.

opinion 100% agreed!

opinion Why not limit the terms of all politicians?

opinion Making supreme court justice a politicians job? Not that any of it seems to matter anymore as everyone has failed it, the founding of the separate branches were designed with the court specifically to-be independent of political whims & consolidations of power to avoid tyranny!!

opinion A thought Lomit The Time For Senators!

opinion I'd be worried that putting term limits on judicial seats will lead to judges who try to fill their pockets before leaving office, like the House and Senate. Under the current system, there's less incentive for a justice to take a bribe because they have lifetime job security.

opinion Best do it now cause with life extension drugs due to be on the market in the next decade you could be looking at Justices have hundreds of years of being in the bench.

opinion Limit Senators to 8 years

opinion Congress 1st.

opinion Term limits should exist for Supreme Court Justices.

opinion Way before that we limit House and Senate terms

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

El Salvador supreme court rebukes president's decree to reopen economyThe constitutional chamber of El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice on Friday declared an executive decree that would establish protocols for the gradual reopening of the economy as unconstitutional. nayibbukele Son malos! Corazón perverso ! Corruption among supreme court for 30 years plus nayibbukele AsambleaSV SalaCnalSV ahora si ya son noticia internacional cobardes asesinos de la población
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

Virginia Supreme Court Grants Temporary Moratorium on EvictionsVirginia's Supreme Court has granted a request from Gov. Ralph Northam to temporarily stop evictions proceedings. The moratorium extends protections for tenants who can't pay their rent through September 7. It’s a reprieve. GovernorTomWolf can you do this for PA?! And all other governors too!!! He should be wearing his black facemask.
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »

Chinese court sentences another Canadian to death for drugsA Chinese court said on Friday it had sentenced a Canadian to death for transporting and manufacturing drugs, the second Canadian in two days to receive a death penalty for drugs and fourth since Canada detained a top Huawei executive in 2018. That should work So progressive China’s gone rogue
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

House can subpoena Don McGahn to testify, appeals court rulesThe House of Representatives can sue to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, but McGahn can continue to challenge the House's subpoena and likely will not have to appear anytime soon. Should never had go too court. This exactly another reason. Trump has too go. VOTE But what will happen before the election is that ObamaGate & crooked Biden will be exposed. Comey is going down, Yates and others are protecting themselves now. And CNN is still going to be the most inept propaganda machine on tv. How can you be so wrong about everything? Keep playing political games ...
Source: cnnbrk - 🏆 393. / 55 Read more »

Appeals court rules for U.S. House over subpoena for ex-White House lawyerA U.S. appeals court on Friday dealt the administration of President Donald Trump a major legal setback, ruling against its bid to block a Democratic-led congressional panel&39;s subpoena for testimony from former White House Counsel Donald McGahn. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »

Appeals Court Revives House Democrats’ Lawsuit Seeking Testimony of Former Trump White House CounselA federal appeals court on Friday revived a bid by House Democrats to require former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in an investigation of President Trump. Just stop already! So sick and tired of wasting tax payer money on witch hunts! After he testifies lock him up. This seems prudent with everything that is going on in 2020. Doesn't smell political at all. 🤔
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »