Requiring judges to face election to obtain and/or retain office makes them – by definition – politicians. As the experience with state courts shows, this leads to at least as corrupt outcomes as the federal judiciary. Judicial elections tend to be very low turnout – voters just zone out when they get to the end of the ballots filled with judge candidates they’ve never heard of. This gives a lot of power to specific constituencies or organized special interests with business before the court to sway the election to their preferred candidate. And a judge who knows he’ll be up for reelection will make sure to keep those groups happy.
There are some less-bad ways to do it – some states provide for judges to be initially appointed and then subject to retention elections after some period of time. But it’s inherently corrupting to a judge’s duty to be impartial. When it’s argued that the child murderer was subject to an illegal search, how do you think the judge up for reelection is going to rule?
If Americans win a majority of both houses and the Presidency, then what I’d like to see is a bill that automatically creates a new Supreme Court seat every two months. And then, at the same time, start the process on a Constitutional amendment that would nullify that bill, and create an actual process for choosing new Supreme Court members. Better pass that amendment quickly, red states, if you want to limit how many seats Biden can put on the court.
I think that I would argue that if a completely partisan person is given a lifetime appointment, they don’t stop being completely partisan. They continue being completely partisan, and thank you for never putting their position under scrutiny. They are essentially made people.
I think these solutions are solving for that reality. The reality that complete partisans are going to be appointed to judgeships, and the best we can do is to counter that process.
I don’t know if six years is right, but I’m closer to that than some of those proposed. The average time they serve is 16 years. We’ll show them! Let’s establish 18-year term limits.
This. the current SCOTUS shows us what partisanship and corruption meet lifetime appointments.
It’s like FDR winning four terms. It had never happened, since there had been a tradition since Washington to only run for two, if a candidate could get that far in the first place. (Not that FDR was bad, to the contrary, but I think a two-term limit for the presidency is a good thing.) It took us horrible judges like Thomas to get us to the point where we see it’s not a good idea.
I’m talking about making these assholes run for election like senators, with an unlimited number of 6-year terms possible.
I meant people loyal to America, rather than to Russia, China, or Iran.
I don’t think the point is to shorten the terms. I think the point is to put the terms on a controlled schedule, so that you don’t, by coincidence of when people happen to die, end up with cluster all appointed by the same president.
If there are no elections, then they are not held accountable. We already know that impeachment doesn’t work in the US. The only way that corrupt moron Thomas (or his equivalent, which will eventually happen again) is going bye-bye is through retirement or death.
Further, if they are held accountable and can be kicked off via elections, then we have the opportunity to undo mad decisions like Dobbs.
However a justice is seated will be inherently political, I get it. But elections can produce demagogues who make the current crop of partisans look like Solomon. I think that prior to Mitch’s dickheaded move, the appointment / advice & consent process worked mostly fine. I’d prefer an appointment process completely in the current president’s control, non-optional advice & consent, a defined schedule of rotation, and set terms.
What you say would be better than what we have now, but I think the current court has destroyed trust and respect in the institution to the extent that we need to revise it completely.
16 years averaged over all justices since the first. For justices that were appointed and retired since 1960 the average is almost 23 years. For justices that were appointed and retires since 1970 the average is over 26 years.
I think that’s an extremely bad idea for the SCOTUS. And not a great idea for judges in general.
I don’t think there are very many of the Trumpists, even among the elected ones, who think of themselves as loyal to Russia, China, or Iran; though I wouldn’t put it past a few of them.
Trump himself is only loyal to his own ass; though I think he’s under the delusion that his ass is well served by cozying up to Putin.
They often don’t. And they sometimes shift more liberal over time.
I’d favor 18 or 20 years because I think it does increase the chances that they’ll judge independently of thinking what they’re going to want to do when the term ends; and they may get enough into that particular habit to stay in it for the last few years, or may well be of retirement age. They should get a decent pension, enough so at least some of them won’t be thinking of that, either (for some people, there’s no such thing as enough.) That also gives them time to learn the particular job, and then have some years before they’re thinking of leaving it. A six-year term only gives you the Senate.
I could see something of a compromise, say, 12 year appointments, and up to a single renewal with congressional approval. While there are no perfect fixes, I absolutely agree that lifetime appointments are flawed and foolish in a Republic. And I support pulling power out of our increasingly oversight proof imperial presidencies.
Yes, our elected representatives are deeply flawed, especially in the house where the short terms means they’re constantly thinking to the next election, but putting ever more power into presidential edicts is deeply disturbing to me.
I personally don’t think lifetime appointments are the problem. I don’t want judges having to worry about reelection and I don’t see a reason to force a competent judge off the bench.
The problem is the quality of the people being appointed, and the best way to do something about that is to encourage people to vote for Democrats.