I have to tell you, at the present time, term limits is the only reform that I support for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republicans have done some pretty dirty things. But I think–I hope–it never comes to court packing. Bad precedent no matter how you look at it IMHO.
But term limits is still an interesting thing. Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher says it should be 18 years. Question: So couldn’t we just make it retroactive? Some justices have served nearly that amount already. Justice Thomas has been on the court for almost 30 years in fact. Think about it.
And I don’t think that we’d have to make changes at the constitutional level. The U.S. Constitution really has little to say about the Supreme Court. Most of what governs it is actually statutory. For example, the requirement that 4 justices must agree to hear a case, comes from a statute. I forget at the moment which one. But trust me, it does .
There are currently a lot of threads on the SCOTUS these days (for good reason, obviously). But there’s a LOT of overlap in the discussion. These threads may be of interest, and most certainly have answers to your questions.
Court packing certainly opens a can of worms but I have seen good arguments that the court should be expanded in size.
The main reason is with more people on the court there is less chance that one justice leaving unbalances things and that one president can tilt the balance dramatically.
I have seen 13 thrown out as a good number (and they had reasons but I forget them now).
As for making things retroactive I am not sure. It would have to be a constitutional amendment and that pretty much trumps everything since it is by definition THE law. Hopefully people writing it would consider how the change would occur and say how it would be managed.
The usual touted reason is that the current Supreme Court is 9 justices because the Courts of Appeal were expanded from 7 to 9. Now that we have thirteen courts of appeal, the idea is that SCOTUS should be expanded to 13 correspondingly as well.
Okay, and I would just add one thing. Some people say, since term limits for the SCOTUS would require a constitutional amendment, it will never be done in today’s political climate. But actually, it was first the Republicans who suggested this, along with other things to limit the high court’s power.
Maybe this is the one thing both parties can agree on now. Hmmm?
Personally I would like to see a mandatory retirement age for all Article Three judges and either merit selection in non-partisan judicial nominating commission that would recommend a trio of candidates the President would be required to pick a nominee from for each vacancy or just make all Article Three appointments require a 3/5ths majority for Senate confirmation (that would force bipartisanship). All these reforms require constitutional amendments so they’re non-starters in today’s climate.
I would not count on the party with the current advantage to be the keen on changing their advantage.
For eight years under Obama republicans zealously beat the drum of government deficits and insisted it was super important. When they got into office you never heard about it and they gleefully expanded the deficit. If republicans lose the presidency today I suspect they will be right back at crying about the deficit.
.