Should SCOTUS justices be elected?

[Sol]

Both electing judges and judicial term limits are bad ideas.

[Mordecai]

The third option.

[politicallefty]

No, electing judges is one of the worst ideas ever. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a set term for judges, such as a single 18-year term. (And I'd support a constitutional amendment setting the Supreme Court at nine members subject to a single 18-year term.) If anything, the current system ensures that no one above the age of 55 will be appointed to the Supreme Court. Six justices were appointed between 50-55, with only Breyer barely out of that range at 56. Thomas and Ginsburg are the only oddities at 43 and 60, respectively. With partisanship as it is, I can't see any President appointing anyone above the 50-55 age range. With a set term limit, longevity would be a very limited concern in choosing a Supreme Court Justice.

[Mechaman]

Option 2.

I'm all for democracy rights but let's not get too excessive here.  Judges should rule based on constitutionality of law and due process or whatever, not populist sentiments.  Say what you want about the society of the Founders, but they clearly had the right idea with checks and balances.  There is indeed concern about Justices overstaying their tenure or becoming all too powerful, but I think what is recommended in Option 2 is the most appropriate.  If forced to choose, I would probably say a 20 year limit assuming said Justice doesn't retire sooner.

Absolutely not.  The court is politicized enough.  Fixed terms, however, yes.

Would've saved me a few lines, hahaha.

[TDAS04]

Both electing judges and judicial term limits are bad ideas.

Why should they be appointed for life?

[TDAS04]

There is no question that the courts play a vital role in cooling passions of a public that is usually not informed enough.  Judges should never be elected, and they should be able to interpret the Constitution and the law without political pressure.  The "will of the people" is often unconstitutional, and the judiciary must be there to contain it.

However, there is also a problem with appointing 40-somethings to the bench with the right to stay there for life, regardless of how long they live (50 more years, maybe?).  While the Judicial branch should be more elite than the other two (or at least the most insulated from politics), there should be power rotation with all of the branches.  Unlimited terms for members of Congress is much less of a problem, and I support them.  But there are so many members of Congress, regularly elected by popular vote, and they still can't get much done as a group.  SCOTUS can block anything with a simple majority.

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

[Hamster]

No, they shouldn't be elected. They should, however, have term limits. A nine-year term would be an elegant solution. Divide the justices into three classes and have the classes turn over at three year intervals. It's the same principle as the staggering of senate races, just with different term lengths and change by appointment rather than election. This schema would also give every president the same amount of influence over the court (as they would always appoint three justices-- or six if they served two terms). That way, the partisan makeup of the court is more closely tied to the partisan mood of the country.

[Frodo]

There is nothing broken about the Supreme Court except for the fact it occasionally reaches decisions that you disagree with, sometimes vehemently.  That is not an excuse to change the existing system.  

[TDAS04]

There is nothing broken about the Supreme Court except for the fact it sometimes reaches decisions that you disagree with, sometimes vehemently.  That is not an excuse to change the existing system.  

You're missing the point.  I don't know where you came up this the silly idea that anyone who disagrees with the precise structure of the system just doesn't like the court's decisions.  The court makes some good decisions, some bad decision.  Even if a decision is good, that doesn't mean that lifetime appointment itself is good.

Whether decisions are good or bad has nothing to do with why some disagree with the concept of lifetime appointments.

[Deus Naturae]

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

There's nothing inherently positive in reversing prior decisions. If anything, I would think that more frequent SCOTUS rotation would have a negative effect by politicizing the court further. Besides, you have no guarantee that decisions that reversed thanks to newly appointed Justices would be ones you view negatively. They could just as easily reverse decisions you view positively.

[TDAS04]

Lifetime judicial appointments result in too much difficulty in achieving a court that undos its bad prior decisions, and there are a few awful decisions of the recent court that we're going to be stuck with for a while.  Too much authority for too long of time for anyone is corrupting, and limiting time on the court to a fixed 20 years would be the best solution.

There's nothing inherently positive in reversing prior decisions. If anything, I would think that more frequent SCOTUS rotation would have a negative effect by politicizing the court further. Besides, you have no guarantee that decisions that reversed thanks to newly appointed Justices would be ones you view negatively. They could just as easily reverse decisions you view positively.

Yes, of course they could reverse decisions that I like.  This isn't about the court making decisions that I like; it's just a disagreement of what the best system is.

Although you have a point that frequent rotation invites may more politicization.  However, 20 years on the bench is not that short of time, and would keep much stability.  With lifetime appointments, a series of justice deaths under a single administration could result in young appointments by a single president with a strong ideology, and they may make bad decisions; those bad decisions may even reverse prior good decisions, or a precedent that the court had traditionally subscribed to.  The court could be radical, and if the ideological justices are young, they will be there for a while.

Again, it doesn't have to be about decisions that I don't like, and suggesting that it is misrepresents the whole point.  The court could make decisions that you think are horrible, and those decisions may be there for a long time.  But if you honestly feel that the current system is best, then that's fine.  I happen to believe that that system could be improved, regardless of ideology regarding court decisions.

[Nichlemn]

I think a term limit would do well to reduce strategic nominations and strategic retirement. However, I think it should be fairly high, with ~20 years being a reasonable amount. Something like 9 years seems too short, making judges more likely to be partisan and short-term in outlook.

[RedSLC]

I'm fine with the concept of having term limits for judges, maybe 20-25 years, so that judicial interpretations can modernize more quickly.

An elected judiciary, however, is a horrible idea. The reason that federal judges aren't elected is so their interpretation of the constitution isn't swayed by popular opinion, and is instead decided by years of studying and reading legal documents, which will put them in a far better position to interpret laws than the average citizen, while at the same time maintaining the diverse swath of opinions present in the general population.

[morgieb]

No.

Not convinced about term limits, though I do suppose they probably marginalise the need for strategic retirements/appointments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is nothing broken about the Supreme Court except for the fact it occasionally reaches decisions that you disagree with, sometimes vehemently.  That is not an excuse to change the existing system.  

lol

[publicunofficial]

When a judge makes a decision, the only thing going through their head should be "What is the right thing to do?", not "Will this hurt my re-election chances?"


Judges are meant to be a check on the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong.

[Indy Texas]

No, no, no. A thousand times, no.

The last thing we need is "Republican" judges saying "I'm a strict Constitutionalist who's gonna protect muh faith and muh family and muh freedoms!" and "Democratic" judges saying "What we need is FAIRNESS for WORKING families!"

[politicallefty]

I think a term limit would do well to reduce strategic nominations and strategic retirement. However, I think it should be fairly high, with ~20 years being a reasonable amount. Something like 9 years seems too short, making judges more likely to be partisan and short-term in outlook.

That was exactly my thinking as well. For a Supreme Court set at nine Justices, a single non-renewable 18-year term for all Justices would work quite well. (And if that's the standard for the highest court, I see no reason why it shouldn't be the standard for all lower courts as well.) That'd work out to two Justices being appointed per each Presidential term. With that set in stone, you'd know you'd be voting for in terms of judicial appointments.

See Larry Sabato's proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

No. The other two branches are already elected, there's no need to politicize the third. Judges are supposed to be non-partisan, and electing them will throw this out the window.
I think giving each justice a term of about 20 years, where in lieu of reelection the justice would have to be reconfirmed by the Senate would work pretty well.