Biden floats rotating Supreme Court justices if he is elected

A term limit for a Supreme Court justice foes not require a constitutional amendment.

 

As usual, you speak from ignorance.

Article III
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.

To create term limits, you need to amend this section of Article III.

 

Mmmmm.... pardoning felons.

I wonder who else does that?

 

That doesn’t say the term is a lifetime term

 

And yet, the section I cited is why the entire world - other than you, in your willful ignorance - understands that the constitution gives the justices described therein a lifetime appointment.
Admit to yourself that you are wrong, and move on.

 

Maybe the dems will.

All I am saying is I support term limits and mandatory retirement ages

 

The Dems can't do it w/o help from the Republicans and the states.

 

At the time ALL of those decisions were made they were disagreed with by a large majority of the public. Hell California had just voted NO on gay marriage before the decision.

And by the way your polls which ROUTINELY oversample liberals and undersample republicans don’t mean ****.

 

People have already lost faith.
Refusing to even hear a nomination for nine months while rushing one through less than two weeks before the election has quenched it
So to answer your question, yes.

 

Why 72? Seems an odd choice......

 

I think 75 is about right. But I agree with a mandatory retirement age.

 

Look, establishing a term limit for Supreme Court justices does not require a constitutional amendment, just as adding or subtracting the number of justices doesn't. They do have the constitutional authority to create the lifetime appointment or create a term limit.

You are the one who's wrong.

Here's a free civics lesson for you.

https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4925

From Ezra Klein to Chief Justice Roberts himself, the notion of Supreme Court term limits is supported by both conservative and liberal legal scholars because it is fair, does not require amending the Constitution,

 

The constitution says they hold their position during good behaviour. That means until they are impeached. The constitution does not permit any othe method of limiting their time in office.

Or have constitutional scholars got it wrong for two plus centuries?

 

At first blush this seems to be an interesting and possibly viable idea, if you were starting fresh. But I don't see how get from here to there legally.

 

There is no need for a constitutional amendment to establish a term limit for the Supreme Court. Period. I just posted an article written citing constitutional experts who explained that in simple terms.


Jeebus.

Is there a liberal member here who has the ability to acknowledge documented facts?

 

You have my attention. I like it

 

I don’t think it would require a constitutional amendment since the judges would still be appointed fir life. It would just require a change to the procedural rules to assign cases to a panel of judges in the same way appeals courts do. Except the panel would be 9 instead of 3.

 

There’s no constitutional requirement for a lifetime appointment. Not one constitutional expert on planet earth would disagree with that.

 

Thank you. I came up with it myself and I like to think it is an elegant way to depoliticize things.
It is the kind of thing that a commission under Biden might look at as one of the options to change the court. Or not change it.

 

No, you have lost faith. The majority of American's still approve of SCOTUS by 58% last I looked.

 

I hope he expands the court and names Hunter as the first justice lol

 

You choose to be wrong.

 

Just wait till abortion and same sex marriage hit the docket and let’s reevaluate the numbers.

And BTW it is 53% since the last polling in August, down from 58% since Kavanaugh and with the last show telling the majority of Americans to “shove off we are ramming an unqualified partisan through” I would be willing to bet that number plummets...

Majority in new poll says Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by election winner
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ays-supreme-court-vacancy-should-be-filled-by

 

53% is still a majority. And they have been slightly lower than that even. They still have more faith in SCOTUS than they do either of the other two branches of government. Pack the court and it will indeed plummet. That is a guarantee.

 

And the old leftist answer to everything...............let's have a blue ribbon commission which will be a waste of time and will certainly be bias to the left. He wants to be President and doesn't have his OWN opinions, he was in the Senate for 36 years and a was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and then ranking member. And he needs a committee to tell him how the courts should be "reformed"?

It's a dodge and I can't believe that his supports swallow it.

If a justice is mentally incapable of doing the job then the Chief Justice can go to the Congress and make a recommendation for removal. We could also pass the following amendment

"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. The term of a Justice of the Supreme Court or any other lower federal court shall not extend past their 72 birthday."