Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices?
If we had it to do all over again, would we appoint Supreme Court justices for life? Allow the chief justice to keep the job forever? Let the court have the final word on which cases it hears and those it declines?
A group of prominent law professors and jurists thinks not, and the group says in a letter to congressional leaders that there is no reason Congress should consider the operation of the high court sacrosanct.
For starters, the group proposes a form of term limits, moving justices to senior status after 18 years on the court. The proposal says that justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions "will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern."
To get around the Constitution's prescription that justices serve for life, the group would let justices stay on the court in a senior role -- filling in on a case, perhaps, or dispatched to lower courts -- or lure them into retirement with promises of hefty bonuses.
It would set up a regular rotation on the court by providing for the nomination of a new justice by the president with each new two-year term of Congress. If that results in more than the current nine justices, only the nine most junior would hear cases.
Read more...
Source: Washington Post
Note: When so-called "Legal Experts" start questioning whether Judiciary practices should be held sancrosanct, and they openly ponder ways to "get around" the Constitution, I have to wonder how we are measuring legal expertise these days?
Putting our most experienced justices "out-to-pasture" after 18 years, just for the sake of maintaining cultural relativism, is lunacy. Limiting the Chief Justice to a 7 year term would be tragic.
Anyone who doubts that our Constitution is in grave danger right now had better sit up an take notice. Wake up, America!



