Blair and Truman, the new Napoleon and Opebo.
The historians here will get the reference.
As my colleagues have pointed tom there are a number of flaws with this proposal. The first among them has been mentioned and that is that we would lose good Justices and struggle to replace them.
However, and I am glad people are so confident in the court now. There was time when this was proposed when the Justices were rather unpopular. I mean one of them was Opebo, nuff said.
Anyway, as I stated then, my primary concern with judicial term limits is the threat of unequal justice. That Justices will rule different depending on when their term is in relation to its end and will game the system to curry favor with a region or administration in the hopes of gaining subsequent employment. Some say, this is a game and it is less of a concern. I disagree, the threat of unfairness in the court, which is often ruling on the election laws, risks the disenfranchisement of players who thus will be encouraged to de-register. This being a game that is based largely on voluntary participation, such a situation would be counter to the interests of the game.
Going further, it has long been my philosophical belief that the independent judiciary is essential for the preservation of democracy and that equality before the law under said judiciary is just as paramount. Judicial Term Limits, manages to harm both principles, while at the same time providing an imperfect solution to a presently (but previously existent) problem of activity on the court.
Therefore, I must oppose any attempt to apply term limits to the court.
