The Souter Resignation and Term LimitsMike Rappaport

Let me make a nonpartisan point about the Souter resignation -- in fact, about virtually all resignations from the Supreme Court.  It just really galls me that the justices have it in their power to decide to resign when a President of their liking can replace them.  The justices should be independent of politics.  Although they are not really independent in many ways, this is one of, if not the most important, way in which they participate in politics.

There is a way around this problem.  We could have term limits for the justices.  My favorite is to establish 18 year terms.  Consequently, every 2 years a justice would retire, and they would have no control over who was the President when their term expired.  But the 18 year term limits would have many other advantages: It would ensure that every President got a chance to replace at least two justices, it would avoid the problem of what to do with senile or declining justices who refuse to step down, it would allow for continuous rather than abrupt changes in the court's composition, it would prevent the justices from becoming too out of step with the views of the political branches and indirectly the people.

These are all important benefits, but I think preventing the justices from making politically motivated resignation decisons would be the most important benefit. 

Comments

[David Schwartz]

Honestly, I think this is a great feature and I think it promotes stability in our laws. If Justices resigned randomly, it would be more likely they would be replaced with an ideologically different Justice. This would mean that what views hold the majority would change more often and our laws would likely be less table.

Bad, but stable and reliable, law is not nearly as bad as not knowing what the law is going to be in ten years.

[krome]

I take it then that if Justice X were to die during year 8, his/her replacement would only get a 10 year term to start with?

If not, the 18 year term with one justice appointed every 2 years would get out of whack after a decade or two (almost certainly before the whole first 18 year cycle had completely unfolded).

[Dan Simon]

When this whole idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices first came up, my response was, "why not 4-year terms for Supreme Court justices, commencing at each presidential inauguration? To paraphrase Shaw, we've determined what they are--now it's just the duration we're bargaining over."

[enemyofthepeople]

Your term limit proposal addresses several of your concerns, but wouldn't fully eliminate politically motivated resignations. You can't force a justice to serve his entire term.

[Lycoas]

Hi There, I found your website on Lycoas, does it support Firefox?

[1247089308]

bHhgJ0 gtfsxglt atnechlm hljjxapk

[1247166069]

HaEflL yiwzwpng dufjbvos ahsliucb

[1248177762]

yfSWEp pwusgibc cwqkaamd ohdmqifv

[1248435412]

jvyohrix agidbyfe zekrcenf

[1248449482]

koixiqkp uoaddbyt xlghvfbn