| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Poll: Most Oppose High Court Life Tenure |
| 2004-11-29 |
| Two words: Tough Shit Six in 10 Americans say there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, according to an Associated Press poll. The survey found public support for an idea that has arisen periodically in Congress without ever making headway. Possibly because it would require a constitutional amendment that would never be ratified?... If President Bush has to nominate a replacement for any of the nine justices, the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed legal abortions in the first three months of pregnancy is certain to be a central issue. For no particularly valid reason. Overturning RvW would put the ball into the states' corner, and the states laws mostly allow such abortions. It's a made-up issue. The survey found that 59 percent of respondents said they favor choosing a nominee who would uphold Roe v. Wade, while 31 percent wanted a nominee who would overturn the ruling. "Test" anyone? Obviously the AP would favor one... The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken Nov. 19-21 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. |
| Posted by:mojo |
| #23 It's kind of like the old joke..What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 70? "Your Honor!" No one wants elected Federal Judges. Here in California it is bad enough with the State Courts. It may sound attractive, but once you catch a real whiff...it stinks. |
| Posted by: Sgt.D.T. 2004-11-29 7:06:43 PM |
| #22 Bill (?) Nelson, D-Florida, is already tacking right. Several other red-state Dem senators up for re-election in '06 to follow: Bingaman in NM, Ben (?) Nelson in Colo., Conrad in ND... |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-29 5:44:36 PM |
| #21 mojo, the Senate stalls are over. Every Bush nominee will get a vote on the floor. Every Democrat running in 2006 who fails to vote for cloture will fear payback in the election. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 5:32:34 PM |
| #20 Amen. Ain't broke. Don't "fix" it. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-29 5:05:06 PM |
| #19 Guys, you really, really don't want popularly elected federal judges. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-11-29 5:00:13 PM |
| #18 Or live with it. Suppose Rennie croaks, and they can't get a replacement through the Senate. So we live with an 8-justice court for a while, so what? Maybe having a few deadlocked decisions will wake up somebody. If another Justice dies, we live with a 7-justice court. No big, all they do is answer the questions they're asked. Sometimes. If they feel like it. If no answer is forthcoming, the will of Congress rules. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-11-29 4:12:06 PM |
| #17 I'd rather take away their driver licenses. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-11-29 4:11:13 PM |
| #16 Term limits for SCOTUS is bad medicine. In effect, the advocates of term limits are saying, the niminating process is broken, so let's change the nature of the court. I'd prefer to adjust the process. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-29 4:06:56 PM |
| #15 ZF, lex is correct. All the Ninth circuit judges are there because the California Senators elected directly by the people (in contravention of the founders design) wanted them. Few of them have indulged in any personal ideologies that were unexpected at the time of their selection. (Republicans seem to do that; Warren, Brennan, Stevens, Souter). The proper solution for the Ninth circuit is break-up and that appears to be on the horizon. The proper treatment for the judiciary is for the legislative branch to start behaving like a legislature and stop letting the courts legislate. They have the power to do it by restricting the cases the courts may hear under Art III Sec 2. Certainly judges make decisions that have political impact. If we treat them like political hacks, we are sure to get the decisions of a hack. If we treat them like judges, we are more likely to get that kind of decsion. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 4:03:31 PM |
| #14 Like the Balanced Budget amendment of the 80s and 90s, this is a bad idea whose time has come. Not allowing re-election would help somewhat, but you'd still have the unaccountability. The only real solution is to have Congress exert its power. They need to impeach and remove a few judges every year pour encourager les autres. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-11-29 4:01:39 PM |
| #13 Zhang - you make good points. But I would not want my case (or a case with far-reaching impact) to be decided by a judge who happens to be courting the Mike Al-moore elitists to vote for him/her at the time. The problem is that the judicial branch is exceeding its authority by not only interpreting the law by dictating it by edict. What the judicial branch needs is a good slap (and in the case of the 9th circus a damn-hard slap) upside the head from Congress and the Executive branches. That is what the whole checks-and-balances thing is for. A consitutional admendment to limit terms, require elections and/or set a mandatory retirement age would do just that. How old are the the clowns in the 9th circus anyway? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-11-29 3:45:11 PM |
| #12 The guys at Power Line have picked up on this subject: Now Norman Ornstein suggests in the Washington Post (a the primary forum for "compromise" proposals) that "to the break the stalemate, give judges less than life [tenure]." Specifically, Ornstein wants to amend the Constitution to eliminate lifetime tenure in favor of a single 15-year term, at least for Supreme Court justices and federal appeals court judges. On the merits, one can perhaps make a decent case for such an amendment. As a stalemate breaker, however, Ornstein's idea seems like a non-starter. First, if the Senate Democrats have the will to continue filibustering Bush's conservative nominees, a 15-year term limit is not likely to break that will. I can just imagine Senator Leahy explaining to Nan Aron that she will only have to put up with Miguel Estrada for 15 years. It is a well known fact among Democrats that conservatives can take away all of our rights in no time flat, never mind 15 years. Second, with four additional Senate seats in Republican hands, and more red state Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2006, it is far from clear that the Democrats will be able to pull off a successful filibuster this time. Now is not the time for Republicans to sue for peace on this issue, thereby rewarding Democrats for their abusive conduct and relieving many of them from their dilemma over how to play this issue going forward. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 3:43:44 PM |
| #11 lex: They get away with it because the majority of Californians support their liberal ideology. They get away with it because as lifetime appointees - like all Federal judges - they are free to indulge their personal ideologies. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 3:35:18 PM |
| #10 They get away with it because the majority of Californians support their liberal ideology. Nothing against federalism here, but the highest level of the judiciary should speak for a more conservative reading of the Constitution. Conservative meaning cautious, sober, moderate. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-29 3:05:04 PM |
| #9 lex: If you want to see the kind of silliness and mischief that an activist court beholden to the people can get up to, look at the 9th Circuit. A complete circus. They are not beholden to the people. They are beholden to their own liberal ideology. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 3:00:47 PM |
| #8 Don: The Republican Senate can give the Dems an offer, change the Senate rules unilaterally and force floor votes on every Bush nominee or support a Constitutional Amendment for an elected judiciary with terms long enough [12 years?] to have a reasonable degree of service and influence. Do you want to be locked out of major appointments for a generation or do you still want the ability to influence the process. If you knew you could change the bench every dozen years or so, there would be far less tendency by either party to spiral every appointment into the circus it has become. As for the states, after being hammered by the judiciary to the point of virtually losing control of their budgets by judicial fiats on distribution, the states will probably ratify such an amendment rather quickly. This is an excellent, excellent idea, in all of its details. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 2:59:28 PM |
| #7 What Mrs D said. If you want to see the kind of silliness and mischief that an activist court beholden to the people can get up to, look at the 9th Circuit. A complete circus. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-29 2:55:26 PM |
| #6 CF: I halfway agree Zhang - for federal judges (like the 9th circus court!) perhaps but not for the supreame court. There is a valid reason the supremes are lifers. It is supposed to allow them to make 'fair' judgements without having to worry about being 're-elected' (Can you imagne the crap coming out of the Supreme Court while they were campaining for re-election?). It is supposed to allow them to be 'above politics' and not beholden to any particular political party or person. Judges are not above politics any more than journalists are.* This is why they should be elected. The turnover should be on a rotating schedule, just as senators are, so that the entire court doesn't change at the same time. But elections are the way to go, given that the courts have moved this country in ways that are quite contrary to the will of the majority. * In my experience, lawyers are some of the most liberal people you will ever encounter. People from all walks of life can become politicians. Only lawyers can become judges. Having lifetime appointments for judges is the equivalent of having a liberal thumb on the scales of justice - except judges in this country don't just get to interpret the law - they get to override the law without possibility of their judgments being overturned in their lifetime. These dictatorial powers are why we need judges to be elected. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 2:45:42 PM |
| #5 What Mrs D said. As much as I'd personally enjoy lynching the 9th Circuit Court scoundrels and a select few others sitting on the Federal Bench, and I would absofuckinglutely do it, too, this is definitely the go slow zone. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-29 12:29:12 PM |
| #4 Judges should not be constantly looking over their shoulders worrying about elections, raising campaign funds, and making decisions that pander to the popular passions of the moment. Our problem is courts that legislate and legislators that are happy to let them. We began to correct this problem in 1994. It will take a while longer to complete, but things should move slowly when we are talking about changing the law through non-legislative means, even if it is to correct prior error. The founders did not create lifetime tenure lightly. We should consider very carefully before revising their work. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 12:21:49 PM |
| #3 I halfway agree Zhang - for federal judges (like the 9th circus court!) perhaps but not for the supreame court. There is a valid reason the supremes are lifers. It is supposed to allow them to make 'fair' judgements without having to worry about being 're-elected' (Can you imagne the crap coming out of the Supreme Court while they were campaining for re-election?). It is supposed to allow them to be 'above politics' and not beholden to any particular political party or person. That said I think there should be a mandatory 'retirement' age - say at 70 or 75. Why is the MSM so focused on RvW while other personal and property rights are being washed down the toilet? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-11-29 12:19:44 PM |
| #2 You have a choice between a republic deriving its power from the consent of the governed or you can have a judicial oligarchy, which sits for life, and is 'de facto' unaccountable to the people. Now is the time to force the issue. The Republican Senate can give the Dems an offer, change the Senate rules unilaterally and force floor votes on every Bush nominee or support a Constitutional Amendment for an elected judiciary with terms long enough [12 years?] to have a reasonable degree of service and influence. Do you want to be locked out of major appointments for a generation or do you still want the ability to influence the process. If you knew you could change the bench every dozen years or so, there would be far less tendency by either party to spiral every appointment into the circus it has become. As for the states, after being hammered by the judiciary to the point of virtually losing control of their budgets by judicial fiats on distribution, the states will probably ratify such an amendment rather quickly. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-11-29 12:17:02 PM |
| #1 I think Federal judges, like politicians, should be elected - every six years. This way, they don't get to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of us for decades, and the separation of powers is preserved. 'Nuff said. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 12:08:13 PM |