It's the Constitution and we're stuck with the system it has given us. Changing the terms of SC and Federal judicial appointments has as much chance as the nation voting to allow Texas to leave the Union. Zero. What drives me crazy, and anyone who's read my stuff here during the presidential part of the election cycle will remember this, is that appointing lifetime Federal and Supreme Court justices makes every presidential election a huge national decision that impacts the nation decades after a president has retired to his "ranch" or wherever the spirit moves him or her, and that the electorate obviously doesn't pay enough attention to this FACT is criminal negligence. Instead, the nation is bombarded with nonsensical bull**** that deliberately confuses American voters. In my humble opinion. On rare occasions, however, and this is one of them, SC appointments can have a big presidential election impact. It will certainly increase Democratic turnout. Bad news for the GOP. Of course, Obama could nominate a moderate justice that, given normal circumstances, would be confirmed after hearings. Given that the Republican majority leader of the Senate, which has to confirm these appointments, has stated that the president should ignore his constitutional duty and forget about nominating someone, because that nominee won't be allowed a confirmation vote, up or down, goes entirely against tradition, will be a huge political issue, and will increase Democratic turnout even more. The Republican leadership is being astonishingly stupid. Thanks, guys. Oh, and I no longer vote in non-public polls, unless Clutch starts them.
Also, instead of changing the Constitution you could just add two more justices to the court. That would be easier.
Dammit, I hate when the thread title and poll question are opposite. Should Judges have lifetime Appointments? No Should Judges have term limits? Yes I answered No, but was answering the thread title.
Yeah I kinda feel like the judge is the CEO of his office. The clerks are doing the work and judges hear from bright minds. And I think most would step down if they get restricted from doing the job. I'd think most of the people recommended for the open seat will have had served as Supreme court clerks at some point. (diagram that sentence, what is that the pluperfect tense?)
I would support a 20 year term limit. In this time I wouldn't support a max age of 70. Yes we have some old judges but as long as they're mentally sharp and have good staffs I don't see any issue with them serving well past 70. Keep in mind we have presidential candidates who are near or over 70. Bernie Sanders doesn't seem out of touch with young people. I am dead set against electing judges. The judiciary is political enough as is to start actually having judges campaigning.
Of course they should be for life, Ike would have gladly fired Earl Warren and whoever else he had to, to avoid Brown v. Board; and FDR and Truman would turned into Bud Adams.
