Change this to a constitutional ammendment limiting aggregate time for all elected or appointed positions and then we'll talk.

Add Congressional limits and I'd be all for this. There are far too many people in Congress who are 70+ years old who have been in office more than 40 years.

If dems are for it, it's suspect at best. Hard pass.

Why 18? Why not 10?

Totally agree with the bill, but they're simply using this as a power move, so **** em.

How about just making a mandatory retirement age at 75 or 80?

aggiehawg said:

---

---

Did you ever see this?

I also think that presidential appointments to federal judiciary should have to be reconfirmed every 8 years. Judges should have to have a way to be removed beyond impeachment

BTKAG97 said:

---

Age limits - Not Term Limits.

Ditto with Congress.

And Repeal the 17th!

---

I'm on board with all of this

BTKAG97 said:

---

Age limits - Not Term Limits.

Ditto with Congress.

---

Could try to tie it to Social Security. As politicians want more time they shrink the ponzie scheme...

I think this is a great idea, and the Dems should definitely get it passed next time they are in control of Congress and the White House.

Quote:

---

Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan

---

Reduce partisanship? Democrats?

e=mc2 said:

---

As others have said. Limit Congress first.

---

ham98 said:

---

I also think that presidential appointments to federal judiciary should have to be reconfirmed every 8 years. Judges should have to have a way to be removed beyond impeachment

---

thats literally the opposite of the intent of lifetime appointments. if they have to be reconfirmed every 8 years they're gonna take being political to an 11 in order to curry favor.

I would think a board that griped about the senility RBG wouldn't mind a bill like this.

It would make Presidential elections even more wild. Imagine an election if you knew a certain number of justices were rolling off the court during the coming presidential term instead of just having to guess who would die next.

Artorias said:

---

I think this is a great idea, and the Dems should definitely get it passed next time they are in control of Congress and the White House.

---

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not so forgive me if it is but there's a 0% chance the Dems get this done. Zero. None. Why? They have no ability to pass an Amendment without significant Republican support and this will most definitely require an amendment. It's not going to happen.

I hope once they go public with this we get a mocking tweet from Cruz letting them in on the secret of how exactly the Constitution gets amended.

That's not the point. You really think the dems are trying to pass a term limit bill out of the goodness of their hearts?

aggiehawg said:

---

---

I love the Simpsons update. Of course they predicted all of this.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I think this is a great idea, and the Dems should definitely get it passed next time they are in control of Congress and the White House.

---

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not so forgive me if it is but there's a 0% chance the Dems get this done. Zero. None. Why? They have no ability to pass an Amendment without significant Republican support and this will most definitely require an amendment. It's not going to happen.

I hope once they go public with this we get a mocking tweet from Cruz letting them in on the secret of how exactly the Constitution gets amended.

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Just like the Electoral College, the Dems always want to change the rules when it doesn't work out in their favor.

No thanks, I'll go with the judicial system the way the founding fathers set it up.

---

Well, see, the problem with that is that the "founding fathers" didn't set it up at all. The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia literally ran out of time, which is why Article III is so short. In essence, they punted the whole matter to Congress.

There is nothing whatsoever at all in the Constitution preventing the party in power (holding both houses of Congress and the Presidency) from increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court to whatever number required to get whatever result they want.

Of course, the other party would promptly do the same thing and soon as they regained power, and pretty soon the Court is just a bunch of partisan hacks acting as puppets for whoever won the last decisive election.

The above is perfectly Constitutional, and thus the way the "founding fathers set it up" sucks. Try harder.

And what happened when FDR tried this?

Artorias said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I think this is a great idea, and the Dems should definitely get it passed next time they are in control of Congress and the White House.

---

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not so forgive me if it is but there's a 0% chance the Dems get this done. Zero. None. Why? They have no ability to pass an Amendment without significant Republican support and this will most definitely require an amendment. It's not going to happen.

I hope once they go public with this we get a mocking tweet from Cruz letting them in on the secret of how exactly the Constitution gets amended.

---

---

Yeah, like I said forgive me if it's sarcasm.

C@LAg said:

---

100% for this

add Congress to the bill as well.

---

I can see limiting SC to 18 years.

So let's see, President, one person, head of executive branch, can be elected every 4 years but for one person twice & no more than 10 years.

If this went through, Supreme Court, nine Justices who jointly lead the judicial branch, appointed once and limited to 18 years, or roughly twice as long as a President.

For Congress, the 535 Reps and Sens, the joint decision makers of the legislative branch, elected every 2 or 6 years. What should be the limit? 12 years (less than only 9 SC justices), 12 years in each chamber, 20 years in each chamber, 20 years regardless of chamber, 30 years regardless of chamber??? I'm just not sure of the the limit when compared to how much time one person (Prez) and nine people (Justices) would have.

It would be a hoot if they passed it into law and then the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

As others have pointed out, Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice can hold their office as long as they exercise good behavior. Any bill that is passed to impose term limits on SCOTUS could be struck down as unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to "override" Article 3 Section 1.

Here's where it gets interesting: does SCOTUS have the power to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Could they strike down the very amendment that is attempting to impose term limits on them?
SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803). It has been theorized that this power could extend to constitutional amendments as well, but they have never tried to strike one down before.

Eventually there will be a landmark Supreme Court case where they have to decide whether or not they have the power to review the "constitutionality" of constitutional amendments.

If I didn't know any better, it's almost like Democrats don't understand the Constitution. Oh, wait.

Worthless, because they could just change it by simple majority.

Just to allow the fantasy for a bit -- with a term of 18 years (and presumably no reappointments), do you think that justices would be swayed by the political winds? Perhaps those that are nearing the end of their term and have other ambitions?

I'm not sure I'd agree with a hard 18 years, but I do agree some kind of health requirements are needed. How much did she even participate in last year's session? Wasn't it pretty widely accepted that the clerk's did much of the work? A lot of this could have been avoided if she was forced to step down a year ago.

EKUAg said:

---

And what happened when FDR tried this?

---

The SCOTUS buckled to the threat and blessed the New Deal

OneAnd19More said:

---

As others have pointed out, Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution says that a Supreme Court justice can hold their office as long as they exercise good behavior. Any bill that is passed to impose term limits on SCOTUS could be struck down as unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to "override" Article 3 Section 1.

Here's where it gets interesting: does SCOTUS have the power to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Could they strike down the very amendment that is attempting to impose term limits on them?
SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803). It has been theorized that this power could extend to constitutional amendments as well, but they have never tried to strike one down before.

Eventually there will be a landmark Supreme Court case where they have to decide whether or not they have the power to review the "constitutionality" of constitutional amendments.

---

No. By its very nature an amendment is constitutional.

jopatura said:

---

Wasn't it pretty widely accepted that the clerk's did much of the work?

---

That's pretty much the job description for law clerk.

Quote:

---

Clerks are also responsible for researching case law, preparing the Justice for oral argument, and drafting significant portions of majority and dissenting opinions often without significant revisions from individual Justices.

After oral argument, the Justice who has been appointed to write an opinion typically selects one of his or her clerks to author a "draft" opinion (Justice Scalia writes most of his own opinions). The Justice will read the clerk's initial draft and offer revisions. Sometimes wholesale changes are needed. On occasion few, if any, edits are required. In fact, one study found that about 30 percent of the opinions issued by the Court are almost entirely the work of law clerks.

---

https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/supreme-court-law-clerks/

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

jopatura said:

---

Wasn't it pretty widely accepted that the clerk's did much of the work?

---

That's pretty much the job description for law clerk.

Quote:

---

Clerks are also responsible for researching case law, preparing the Justice for oral argument, and drafting significant portions of majority and dissenting opinions often without significant revisions from individual Justices.

After oral argument, the Justice who has been appointed to write an opinion typically selects one of his or her clerks to author a "draft" opinion (Justice Scalia writes most of his own opinions). The Justice will read the clerk's initial draft and offer revisions. Sometimes wholesale changes are needed. On occasion few, if any, edits are required. In fact, one study found that about 30 percent of the opinions issued by the Court are almost entirely the work of law clerks.

---

https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/supreme-court-law-clerks/

---

I got that, but didn't they do even more then normal that last year? I know there was a lot of times where she'd just barely be available for oral arguments. Or was it okay since everyone knew what her position would be anyways?

LOYAL AG said:

---

A bill? So effing what. The Constitution says this:

Quote:

---

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 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.

---

I read that to mean that lifetime appointments are in the Constitution which would mean that a bill is meaningless. Am I seeing that wrong?

---

No. It isn't within Congress' authority to limit SCOTUS terms.