Should Supreme Court justices have their terms limited?

[Bo]

Also, if yes, how many years maximum should each justice be allowed to serve.

I'd say Yes, and each SC Justice should be able to serve a maximum of 15 years.

[Free Palestine]

No, but the Supreme Court's power needs to be limited.  A lot of the centralization of power over the history of the United States has been allowed to happen because of the Court's power to stealth-amend the Constitution through judicial review.  For an example of how this power is abused, look at the Dred Scott decision, or the retardedly wide definition of "Interstate Commerce" that came to be following the New Deal.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely not.

[Psychic Octopus]

Imagine if their terms were all limited at the same time - and the President still had the power to appoint them.

[Bo]

Imagine if their terms were all limited at the same time - and the President still had the power to appoint them.

That should be avoided. Also, if their terms were limited, Justices could still retire (or die) before their terms are up. Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers did not intend for most Justices to stay on the Court for 25-40 years. Due to the lack of modern medicine in the 18th century, the Founding Fathers excepted most Justices to die way before they served that long. However, due to modern medicine, many SC Justices can stay on the Court much longer than the Founding Fathers envisioned they would. I believe Canada and some other countries have limits on how many years (and/or until what age) a Supreme Court Justice is allowed to serve.

[Franzl]

No, lifetime appointments ensure total independence....which can be abused, but it's still a very good thing

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'd prefer a mandatory retirement age.......some old fart pushing 90 shouldn't be allowed on the court.

[Torie]

No, not really, although a mandatory retirement age of 80 might be OK.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a term limit were in place, it should be lengthy, and a justice should never be able to be reappointed to the Supreme Court.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

they already are limited through the concept of death. The only foreseeable problem with this though is the obvious potential future where everything is like ghost in the shell, and supreme court justices could rely on cyber brains to live for almost 200 years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If a term limit were in place, it should be lengthy, and a justice should never be able to be reappointed to the Supreme Court.

This exactly. Make terms lasting 10, 15 years, but without the possibility of being reappointed.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

No, lifetime appointments ensure total independence....which can be abused, but it's still a very good thing

^ This ^

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The advent of cybernetic neural implants could potentially mean that they could be on the bench for eternity.

[Joe Republic]

I'd impose a single term limit of 18 years.  The terms would be staggered in such a way that each seat becomes vacant every two years.

[minionofmidas]

No, not really, although a mandatory retirement age of 80 might be OK.

I'd suggest 75 or 20 years of service, whichever is sooner. Or thereabouts, anyways.

I'd impose a single term limit of 18 years.  The terms would be staggered in such a way that each seat becomes vacant every two years.

There'd still be additional unplanned vacancies, of course.

[Joe Republic]

I'd impose a single term limit of 18 years.  The terms would be staggered in such a way that each seat becomes vacant every two years.

There'd still be additional unplanned vacancies, of course.

... with special nominations and confirmations to fill them accordingly.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No, lifetime appointments ensure total independence....which can be abused, but it's still a very good thing

This. Not to mention that term limits could allow one president to appoint too many justices.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes. Each should have an 18-year term, with one expiring every 2 years.

EDIT: Looks like Joe beat me to it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are people acting as if 9 justices is some sort of divinely mandated number in coming up with term length proposals?  It's not even Constitutionally mandated.

[Joe Republic]

Why are people acting as if 9 justices is some sort of divinely mandated number in coming up with term length proposals?  It's not even Constitutionally mandated.

I know, but 9 is fine by me.  An odd number of justices is preferable for obvious reasons, and 9 is neither too many nor too few.

[minionofmidas]

Why are people acting as if 9 justices is some sort of divinely mandated number in coming up with term length proposals?  It's not even Constitutionally mandated.

I know, but 9 is fine by me.  An odd number of justices is preferable for obvious reasons, and 9 is neither too many nor too few.

Actually... an odd number of justices is a pretty dumb idea for obvious reasons. Unless you're looking purely for partisan gain.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are people acting as if 9 justices is some sort of divinely mandated number in coming up with term length proposals?  It's not even Constitutionally mandated.

I know, but 9 is fine by me.  An odd number of justices is preferable for obvious reasons, and 9 is neither too many nor too few.

I'd prefer increasing the size to at least 12, so that there is 1 Supreme Court Judge per Circuit.

(I'd also prefer realigning the circuits and increasing their number to 13, with a minimal realignment of putting California into a new 12th Circuit and renaming the D.C. Circuit as the Territorial Circuit and transferring Puerto Rico there from the 1st, the Virgin Islands from the 3rd, Guam and the NMI from the 9th, and America Samoa which currently has no circuit. I'd also transferring the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction in cases that don't really involve D..C., but a government agency based there to the Federal Circuit .)

[Хahar 🤔]

Why are people acting as if 9 justices is some sort of divinely mandated number in coming up with term length proposals?  It's not even Constitutionally mandated.

I know, but 9 is fine by me.  An odd number of justices is preferable for obvious reasons, and 9 is neither too many nor too few.

Actually... an odd number of justices is a pretty dumb idea for obvious reasons. Unless you're looking purely for partisan gain.

What reasons?