It seems that there is no age requirement for the Supreme Court and one would imagine that a President (whose party controls Congress) might want to ensure that his nomination would have as much longevity as possible. Sure, a responsible President would want someone of experience but there have been a lot of irresponsible Presidents who would put political advantage before all else. So why haven’t we seen more 35, 30 or even 25 year-olds nominated?
because any nominee has to be confirmed by a bunch of old people in the Senate, and as we know younger people are all universally awful.
Also, if you nominate a 25 year old lawyer, his ideology will likely be very different when he’s 50. So your legacy is that you nominated a loose cannon to the SCOTUS. 
Believe it or not, there was time not so long ago when everything wasn’t politicized. We had political leaders who really wanted judges who followed the Constitution not activist judges. As such, an older person was nominated with the idea that time would remove him or her if he or she went rogue.
Good thing you added the qualifier, because I don’t believe that at all. If anything, we’re naïve about how not naïve things used to be, but it’s possible every generation feels that way to some extent. No doubt people in liberal democracies of the 22nd century will view us as rubes, lacking their oh-so-hardened cynicism.
Hey, future generations: we’re a lot more aware of things that you probably think, and that sexual variation you think you just invented? It’s old news, even to us.
I wonder what effect life extension will have. I vaguely understand that 120 years is probably the maximum, but assuming no-one healthy wants to die and that no justice wants to retire – Pennsylvania just increased the mandatory retirement age for judges to 75 — ( English Judges retire at 70, but keep claiming this is age discrimination, and they have decades of judging in them [ Indian judges at 62 and claim the same ] ) maybe instead of robot justices we will have 130-yr-olds on the SC, spry as ever and sharp as a tack, stubbornly refusing advancement to whipper-snappers of 80.
Because you don’t just get any bozo with an internet law degree on the SC. The pool of appointees is more or less restricted to high level judges, which have already climbed the ladders of their respective circuits and whatnot. They also need to have proven, within their career and through the cases they tried and the arguments they’ve written, that they’re a sound fit for the job as well as for the particular political bent that the President is trying to fit in. All of which takes time.
Oh, and Pearl Clutching Provocateur ? The job was political from day one, and it’s the whole job of the SC to be “activists”. Any judge, really. That’s why they have discretionary power in the first place. If their only job was to “follow the Constitution” (you say that as if that was easy and clear cut and not subject to debate and interpretation at all…), they could be adequately replaced by a very small shell script.
Because we’d have a Supreme Court full of Harold T. Stones.
The Supreme court was intended to be a capstone to an illustrious career rather than a career in and of itself. Reagan tried with (Douglas) Ginsburg. The problem with picking someone so young is that their youthful indiscretions are a heck of a lot more recent.
Well, how much longevity you want in *other people’s *appointees? A POTUS has a maximum term of 8 years. By the time that much time has elapsed again, some other POTUS of the same party may wants to set forth *his *agenda which by then will not be the same.
We already have nice long tenures at SCOTUS. In our day and age, naming a 50 year old pretty much gives you the expectation of a quarter-century of service if s/he is up to it, barring catastrophic health troubles. John Roberts was appointed CJOTUS at age 50. Elena Kagan was named Associate Justice also at age 50 and as a woman her actuarial outlook is even better than Roberts’. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has served 23 years, Clarence Thomas for 25. Tony Scalia served almost 30 years and seemed to be only slightly slowing down when he died suddenly. Kennedy’s coming up on 29 soon. So the original Reagan/Bush administration has had its appointees in key roles to this day. Things as they are seem to be working if “longevity” is a goal.
The SCOTUS makes tremendously important legal decisions. Do you really want younger, necessarily less experienced people making those decisions?
Cite please.
It’ll end up like Pratchett’s Unseen University, where in the past advancement was only possibly by the Dead Man’s Pointy Shoes policy.
It would be regrettable if assassination was seen as the only path to freeing the judiciary from the arthritic liver-spotted grip of the Olds…
Absolutely untrue.
More specifically, it’s subject to debate and interpretation the question of what an “unreasonable” search is, and I agree completely that the proper role of judges is to decide whether a specific set of facts constitutes an unreasonable search, and that such decisions require interpretation. And I think you’ll agree that Ruby or Perl is unsuited to that task.
But what they are interpreting there is the text of the Fourth Amendment.
When a court rules that the text contains other substantive rights, and then proceeds to start interpreting those, and finds within THEM more rights, and starts interpreting those… that’s the activist line. The Constitution’s words, says the Roe majority, protect a woman’s right to have an abortion during her first trimester. But by the last trimester, that protection is greatly weakened. That rule is deduced from the text of the Constitution.
Do you concede that perhaps there might have been a slight addendum on the part of those judges? Just a nudge?
I don’t see that there’s a meaningful distinction between the two examples.
SCOTUS ruled that the first clause of the XIVth amendment implied a right to privacy which is de facto suggested by the plain text of that amendment (and/or ownership of one’s body, depending on who you ask) and from there ruled that yadda yadda.
That’s no different from quibbling on what constitutes “unreasonable” search or whether the comma is really important in the 2nd amendment. It’s not like they rewrote the shit.
Indeed. And a mechanism exists if SCOTUS doesn’t feel it has sufficient grounds to weigh in on the matter - they just decline to hear the case. If there was an obvious and simple set of criteria for this decision, then you could computer-script that, too.
Frankly, if all challenges were clearly divided between “has constitutional merit” and “does not have constitutional merit”, we’d expect all rulings to be 9-0, with all opinions having an element of either “Duh, the constitution says X” or “Duh, the constitution doesn’t say X”.
If that’s what America wants, they should ditch their short broad-strokes hard-to-amend constitution and replace it with something that spells out thousands of pesky details with anal-retentive precision, like the Alabama constitution.
Not any more than the presidency or the Senate. It’s an actual working court that has to come up with rulings and new case law when called for.
The Federal bench (from District to SCOTUS) is made a lifetime appointment by the constitution to support judiciary independence. At what level someone *enters *it is up to the nominating authority.
Just as a data point, Justice Thomas was 43 when he was appointed in 1991. He is now 68. Based on the careers of Ginsburg and Stevens, he could have another 15 or more years on the Court. That’s an awful long time for one person to hold that office, in my opinion.
Elsewhere, you’ve demonstrated your ignorance of 20th century history. So I guess you’ve never heard of John Marshall, Virginian & Revolutionary veteran, who became Chief Justice in 1801–in his forties. Wikipedia seems pretty accurate:
I’m sure the long line of Democratic-Republican Presidents wished they had an older & less vigorous Chief Justice. Really, history is interesting.
If there were ever a time when a political party could or would pull off the tactic that the OP mentions, it would be now.
-
The Republican Party will not sniff the White House again for a long, long time to come once the Trump presidency has come to a close.
-
We are in such a polarized time today that even a very inexperienced, young nominee might pass the Senate by at least 1 vote, as long as he satisfies the political leanings of the R or D Senators, and the Rs or Ds have a majority, respectively.
So, logically, the Trump administration ought to nominate nominees in their 40s or so.