Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Check out this ignorant opinion..
Hey asshole the Supreme Court is about following the Constitution not the touchy feely politics of the day, that's why a right wing supreme Court made abortion , gay marriage legal .
Opinion | The Supreme Court Needs Term Limits
No other major democracy has lifetime appointments to its highest court. Only the United States does, and it creates all kinds of problems.
For one, our system often does not respect the will of the people. Rather than the Supreme Court’s makeup being determined by elections over many years, it’s based on a combination of those elections and the randomness of how long justices live. Jimmy Carter was unable to make a single nomination to the court because no justice died or retired during his four-year presidency. Richard Nixon filled four seats during his five-and-a-half years as president.
“The policy future of the country,” Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has written, “depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society.”
This unfairness born of randomness isn’t the only problem. Given the deep partisan polarization in America, lifetime appointments have also turned confirmations into epic political battles. That’s why the Brett Kavanaugh process feels so momentous. It’s why the Merrick Garland process — or the lack of one — still enrages so many people.
“It makes the stakes too high,” the political scientist Lee Drutman wrote this summer in Vox. “So here’s a simple idea to dial down some of the destructive warfare of the Supreme Court confirmation process: term limits for Supreme Court justices.”
Yes, indeed. Term limits for the court are an excellent idea. It would take a constitutional amendment, but that’s O.K. The United States has already amended its Constitution 27 times — or an average of about once every nine years. We are overdue for at least one more amendment.
The most appealing idea to me is staggered 18-year terms on the court, with each four-year presidential term automatically bringing two appointments. Such a system would be more consistent with democratic principles. It would have several ancillary benefits, too. Aging justices would no longer hang on to their jobs past the point when they should (which has been a real problem in the past). And as Ornstein notes, highly qualified candidates in their late 50s and early 60s — who are now largely ignored by presidents — would be considered for the court.
Hey asshole the Supreme Court is about following the Constitution not the touchy feely politics of the day, that's why a right wing supreme Court made abortion , gay marriage legal .
Opinion | The Supreme Court Needs Term Limits
No other major democracy has lifetime appointments to its highest court. Only the United States does, and it creates all kinds of problems.
For one, our system often does not respect the will of the people. Rather than the Supreme Court’s makeup being determined by elections over many years, it’s based on a combination of those elections and the randomness of how long justices live. Jimmy Carter was unable to make a single nomination to the court because no justice died or retired during his four-year presidency. Richard Nixon filled four seats during his five-and-a-half years as president.
“The policy future of the country,” Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has written, “depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society.”
This unfairness born of randomness isn’t the only problem. Given the deep partisan polarization in America, lifetime appointments have also turned confirmations into epic political battles. That’s why the Brett Kavanaugh process feels so momentous. It’s why the Merrick Garland process — or the lack of one — still enrages so many people.
“It makes the stakes too high,” the political scientist Lee Drutman wrote this summer in Vox. “So here’s a simple idea to dial down some of the destructive warfare of the Supreme Court confirmation process: term limits for Supreme Court justices.”
Yes, indeed. Term limits for the court are an excellent idea. It would take a constitutional amendment, but that’s O.K. The United States has already amended its Constitution 27 times — or an average of about once every nine years. We are overdue for at least one more amendment.
The most appealing idea to me is staggered 18-year terms on the court, with each four-year presidential term automatically bringing two appointments. Such a system would be more consistent with democratic principles. It would have several ancillary benefits, too. Aging justices would no longer hang on to their jobs past the point when they should (which has been a real problem in the past). And as Ornstein notes, highly qualified candidates in their late 50s and early 60s — who are now largely ignored by presidents — would be considered for the court.
