Should there be term limits for judges?

[Karmadillo]

Roberts apparently thinks so. Seems like a good idea.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/07/supreme_court_term_limits/

<edit>

The Constitution grants life tenure to federal judges, and Rehnquist was under no legal obligation to step down because of illness -- not even an incurable cancer that was visibly robbing him of his strength. But there is growing support, both public and academic, for abolishing life tenure on the high court, and cases like Rehnquist's are part of the reason why. Charles Evans Hughes, chief justice from 1930 to 1941, found it ''extraordinary how reluctant aged judges are to retire." In the intervening 70 years, the problem has only grown worse.

It is now almost routine for justices to cling to power long past their prime. Some, like Rehnquist, become physically debilitated. Others decline mentally. ''Mental decrepitude among aging justices is a persistently recurring problem," the historian David J. Garrow has written. And it ''has been an even more frequent problem on the 20th-century court than it was during the 19th."

<edit>

But many legal scholars disagree and have proposed either a mandatory retirement age or appointing justices for fixed terms. An AP poll last year found 60 percent support for ending lifetime tenure -- with people older than 65 most likely to favor mandatory retirement. Past attempts to limit Supreme Court terms have fizzled, but in a post-Rehnquist era, the winds may shift.

''Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence," one highly regarded legal observer has noted. ''It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges."

The author of those words: John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist. He wrote them in 1983, when he was a lawyer in the White House counsel's office under President Reagan. The case for ending life tenure on the high court was solid then; it is even more compelling 22 years later. Someone should ask Roberts to elaborate on it when his confirmation hearings begin next week.

more...

[William769]

1. No.

Sometimes we have to take the bad with the good.

[JDPriestly]

2. No. Read the Federalist Papers on this.

The Founding Fathers wanted federal judges to be independent. If they had to answer to anyone other than themselves, they would not be. It's unfortunately true. Of course, even this "independence" has its limits because the judges that are appointed to the federal bench are still susceptible to social pressure. Roberts' wife, for example is a corporate attorney, and Roberts is not likely to be able to decide against the clients of his wife or their fellows in the corporate world and then sit around the dinner table with them at a social event. A number of our judges and justices have this problem -- they respond to social pressure.

[Seeking Serenity]

3. Yes

but only for right-wing judges.

Good judges, on the other hand, can stay on forever, even post-mortem (their clerks would know ho they'd vote on a particular case).

;)

[pinto]

4. No. I think the intent for the court to take a long view is good balance.

[TahitiNut]

5. Selfishly, I wish Thurgood Marshall had hung on like Rehnquist.

But the fact that Rehnquist had no life and Marshall did is why Marshall was the great justice he was. Rehnquist never realized his own humanity. Marshall's greatest strength was his humanity.

[Seeking Serenity]

6. Marshall always recused

in any case involving the NAACP because he had been its general counsel years before. He was still recusing 'til the end.

Class.

[cynatnite]

7. No

I don't want judges pandering to the majority to get their vote. I don't want judges taking campaign contributions from corporations or the rich.

Good or bad, I want federal judges to have a lifetime appointment. Our founding fathers called it right.

[Karmadillo]

8. They wouldn't have to be elected. They would simply be able to serve

for a given number of years after being appointed.

[cynatnite]

11. And what about reappointments?

Would that be a possibility?

The problem I still have with it, is the fact that the appointments would only last as long as they were in the good graces of those doing the appointing. I don't see them being free to do their jobs without political pressure.

[journalist3072]

9. No.

I think John Roberts made a very good point today. He said if you had judges with term limits, then people would simply delay lawsuits, etc...until they thought they could get a judge who would be more sympathetic to their cause.

[1932]

10. I think 15 years is on the short end of reasonable. It would be interestin

to do it the way they do it in the UK with parliament. Say you had to subject yourself to renonomination anytime between 15 and 20 years. That means that you had a five year time frame within which you had to resign. Resigning would give the president at the time a chance to renominate you or pick someone who more closely matches the current mood.

The five year fram gives you one year on either side of on presidential term to make your choice.

With the judiciary, I believe it is important to remove justices from some level of being responsive to politics, but not so much that they become anchors to the past or rule with impunity to popular moods.