I've been reading a recent biography of Franklin Roosevelt ("Traitor to his Class"). Good book. I just got past the section on his failed attempt to stack the Supreme Court in 1937, to try to add more justices sympathetic to his New Deal programs. (It does seem like a bad idea - glad it didn't go over at the time.)

But I've been thinking for a while that Supreme Court justices probably shouldn't have life terms. Doesn't that seem a little long for someone so influential over public life?

Congress can change this without amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court make-up isn't mentioned in the Constitution; the Congress is given the power of creating it. The Court had a varied number of justices in the first few decades of the US but the number has been fixed since 1869.

Anyway - what do you think about a 20 year term limit for Supreme Court Justices and maybe for all federal judges? Perhaps Congress could start the new terms effective immediately (e.g. Clarence Thomas wouldn't be kicked out in 2010 - he'd be able to serve until 2029 if the law were enacted this year).

What do you think? Why is it a wise idea to give lifetime terms to Supreme Court justices?

It seems to me that there are more Supreme Court justices that are retiring on their own, for whatever reason, rather than leaving their chair open via death. If the 20 year term limit is enacted, we might get more of what I wouldn't be surprised if Ruth Bader Ginsberg does, in waiting for a Democratic president (or a conservative president for someone like a Clarence Thomas) to get into office.

I personally have no problem with how it is now. It's honestly not too tilted one way or another. Not like it has been in the past.

John Paul Stevens has been on the Supreme Court since 1975! Isn't 34 years (15% of America's existence) long enough?

"But I've been thinking for a while that Supreme Court justices probably shouldn't have life terms...Congress can change this without amending the Constitution."

I don't believe that's true, Andrew. The Constitution states that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," essentially meaning for life, unless a justice is impeached and removed.

I'd be in favor for 15-20 year terms. A lifetime appointment is too long to have such a large amount of power over the people.

Magic_eye: The Constitution states that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," essentially meaning for life, unless a justice is impeached and removed.

That's an interesting interpretation, which, you're right, seems to be that Supreme Court justices have life terms. I hadn't heard that before.

So - let's amend the Constitution. Quite a bit harder, but why not?

I think we need a Constitutional Convention anyway - it's been too long! We can get rid of the Electoral College while we're at it! :-)

I'd be in favor for 15-20 year terms. A lifetime appointment is too long to have such a large amount of power over the people.

I agree. I think I'd even go for a 10 year term.

Have the terms expire on the two year cycle between presidential elections and only have 2 expire at any given point in time.

That way no single president could influence more that 4 judge appointments even if he served 2 terms.

And I agree with Andrew. Let's dump the electoral college.

Andrew2 wrote:

"I think we need a Constitutional Convention anyway - it's been too long! We can get rid of the Electoral College while we're at it!"

Skybill wrote: "And I agree with Andrew. Let's dump the electoral college."

Ok I've already pointed out why this is a bad idea. The problem with doing away with the electoral college is this. The Presidential campaign would only occur in 10 states. California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia.
*see also http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml

The Electoral College was designed to let the little states have at least near as much power than the big ones. I would not like to see this institution be axed. Reformed maybe. I don't know if the rule still applies that the Electors can vote for whomever they want. If this is the case the will of the people should be expressed not the opinion of one person.

Morman74: Ok I've already pointed out why this is a bad idea. The problem with doing away with the electoral college is this. The Presidential campaign would only occur in 10 states. California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia.

How many states did it occur in in 2008?

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, and Indiana? If you lived in California in 2008, your vote for president meant nothing. ZERO.

Get rid of the electoral college and all votes count the same.

Why does "a state" need more representation because it has a smaller population than another state with a larger population? Should your vote for president count more because you live in a smaller state? Why?

The original reason was to clearly give the minority a voice. Part of the checks and balances philosophy the founders had. I seriously agree with that idea, and am reluctant to see any part of it diminished without a really good reason.

IMHO, just ditching the college isn't any good, unless it's coupled with something like instant run-off, or something. I don't like the college, but I think I might like just a simple majority vote less.

Here is some interesting information on the origin of the electoral college and the competing ideas about how the framers of the Constitution thought we should elect a president:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

In 1789, states were much stronger and the federal government, weaker in terms of public influence in America. There's a famous saying that before the Civil War, people spoke of "The United States Are" and after the Civil War, "The United States Is." Today, a person's state isn't such an important part of his/her identity; people move around all the time now. The states are much more united now than in 1789.

Based on the above quote, you can see that the framers were worried about "favorite sons" of populous states dominating the elections - not about large populations having undue influence in the actual voting. What I mean is, they would have worried about George W. Bush having a better shot at the presidency in 2000 because he was from a large state or Barack Obama because he was from Illinois. They weren't worried about the large populations of California or New York having undue influence on candidates that were not their favorite sons.

I'd also argue that everyone has plenty of information today about the candidates, unlike 1789 when news traveled so much more slowly.

So I still say: get rid of the electoral college. We didn't have popular vote of US Senators in the original Constitution, either, but that was finally amended in the nineteen-teens.

Presidential candidates would only have to campaign in the 10 biggest CITIES, not states. With LA, NYC, SF and other minority-leading big cities, we'll be set up for a permanent Democratic majority! Yes, dump the EC.

Also, with a permanent Democrat majority, yeah, limit the Supreme Court justices to a shorter term so we can rid the bench of conservative nitwits that can't adminster the oath of office.


The moral here is lets not f*ck with things, we've already a FULL PLATE.