I would argue that the advantage of a fixed term limit for judges, whether by term of years or based on the judge’s age, is that it increases the turn-over on the bench, particularly the Supreme Court, and therefore reduces the influence that any one person has. That diffuses the power of the judges.
For example, compare the current Supreme Court of Canada with the Supreme Court of the United States. The current longest-serving justice on our Court is the Chief Justice, Beverly McLachlin, who was appointed as a puisne justice in 1989 and as Chief Justice in 2000. The next longest serving justice is Justice Binnie, who was appointed in 1998.
By contrast, there are four justices of the Supreme Court of the United States who have longer tenures than Chief Justice McLachlin (Stevens (appointed by Ford), Scalia (Reagan), Kennedy (Regan) and Thomas (Bush)).
In other words, in the space of 20 years, there has been a complete turn-over of the personnel on the Supreme Court of Canada, and other than the Chief Justice, no-one has been there longer than 11 years. While there’s no doubt that a Supreme Court justice has a great deal of authority, judges in our system don’t have as much time to exercise that power as justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
This also means that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice doesn’t carry as much political significance in Canada as it does in the U.S. Any time there’s an appointment to the SCOTUS, you hear comments that the candidate could stay on the bench for thirty years, that this may be the President’s only chance to influence the Court, etc. The stakes aren’t as high in Canada - justices won’t be on the Court as long, and the Prime Minister has a greater chance of making more appointments over time than is the case for the President.
generally, but not always. Justice Binnie was appointed directly from the Bar. He took the seat of Justice Sopinka, who had also been appointed from the Bar. Those are the only two recent appointees that I can think of who were not judges.
But I think that’s the same as in the US, isn’t it? Rehnquist was appointed directly to the Supreme Court - have there been any other recent appointees (say, in the past 30 years) who didn’t have any judicial experience?
This really isn’t the case with Supreme Court judges. Or with most of the federal judiciary. It would be hard to argue that there are any “lazy” judges on the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeals, or even in the District Courts.
Do we really want judges thinking about making contacts and their next job while ruling on incredibly important cases?
Manaory retirement would not. But it has been suggested in theis thread to have renewble terms. That most certainly would.
The wrinkle on mandatory retirement is what age? Many would argue 60 0r 65. we do not respect our elders in America.
Experience means nothing ,get out of the way.
No, there haven’t been, although Sandra Day O’Connor was an Arizona state judge. All of the other appointments in the last 30 years had been on one of the US Courts of Appeals.
This is how it works with the Supreme Court of Canada - quorum for the Court is five justices out of nine, and in certain rare cases, four justices can deliver the judgment of the Court. However, one of the differences between the two courts is that the SCC is a purely statutory court, so Parliament has considerable freedom in defining it by statute.
The SCOTUS is not a statutory Court - it is created by Article III of the U. S. Constitution, and I have seen respectable arguments that Congress does not have the power to authorise less than the full court to sit, because that might be interpreted as Congress sub-dividing the Court. Since Congress has never passed such legislation, the discussion is all hypothetical. (Of course, individual justices can decide not to sit on a particular case, due to conflicts or illnesses, but that’s different from Congress mandating panels of less than the full Court.)
Though I wouldn’t be in favor of mandatory retirement, only term limits. I think 18 years would be perfect. A new justice every two years. Start the rotation in 2 years, with Stevens, then 2 years later with Scalia, etc. If one falls ill, retires early, dies, or for any other reason is let go, they are replaced, but the replacement serves the rest of the original term, not 18 years.
I don’t know that there is anything that really needs to be fixed about the system, I’m just somewhat uncomfortable with lifetime appointments. I would prefer term limits.
Term limits should apply to the most recent ones, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Sotomayer is too new to fall in . The older ones are on their way out anyway, because they are very old or frail.
