What About Retroactive Term Limits For the SCOTUS?

I have to tell you all, at the present time, term limits is the only reform that I support for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republicans have done some pretty dirty things. But I think–I hope–it never comes to court packing. Bad precedent no matter how you look at it IMHO.

But term limits is still an interesting thing. Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher says it should be 18 years. Question: So couldn’t we just make it retroactive? Some justices have served nearly that amount already. Justice Thomas has been on the court for almost 30 years in fact. Think about it.

And I don’t think that we’d have to make changes at the constitutional level. The U.S. Constitution really has little to say about the Supreme Court. Most of what governs it is actually statutory. For example, the requirement that 4 justices must agree to hear a case, comes from a statute. I forget at the moment which one. But trust me, it does .

Thoughts?

 

The Constitution, Art.III, is very specific about life tenure for all Art. III federal judges. It would be impossible under the Constitution to mess with their terms except by constitutional amendment That would be exceptionally difficult under present political circumstances, since it requires proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the State legislatures, and then ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures or three fourths of special state constitutional conventions. Thinking that will happen under present political circumstances is pie in the sky. The most promising way of influencing the Court without Amendment would be adding seats to the Court, since there's nothing in the Constitution specifying nine justices; it sarted out 6, and has been lowered from 9 to 8 and then raised to 10. The popular President FDR wasn't able to get his packing plan through the Senate, but his threat to do so brought about the famous "switch in time that saved 9", when a couple of conservative Justices discovered they were liberal

 

The current method of, 1. a SCOTUS justice being nominated by the current president and, 2. being voted on by the Senate is not representative of 'three separate and equal branches of government' when two of the branches decide who will be on the third. There has to be a better way and, with the corrupt two parties it's needed badly.

 

There again, that would require a constitutional amendment, which is too cumbersome a process to be a practical possibility under present conditions of partisan division. . Besides separation of powers, mutual checks and balances is another basic feature of our system, which is what the judicial selection process is supposedly about. I'm thinking both Houses of Congress should be involved in the selection.

 

I don't know about that (i.e., 'pie in the sky'). Actually, last time around, it was the Republicans who suggested limiting the court's power this way. Maybe now for once, both parties would be in agreement on this one?