SENATE BILL: Judicial Term Length Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

TJ you have 24 hours as you know to advocate for this. If I forget to mention this on a bill, assume it applies because it certainly will, most likely.

[TJ in Oregon]

In Atlasia having lifetime appointments does not make much sense because we run on a condensed time scale from real life. A 3-year term is the equivalent of serving 36 years in real life. But here justices do not age correspondingly fast, so it can put the Supreme Court position essentially out of play. The scarcity of cases the Supreme Court regularly hears coupled with long tenures makes the court a mostly forgotten aspect of the game. Having a term limit would cause some level of turnover and interest in the office, but I also want to make a limit long enough that  the Supreme Court is not politicized.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I like the concept of this bill, but I think that even three years is a bit long for someone to be holding the same position.

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Well, I'd agree with Scott that if we're going to do this, it needs to be 1 year. To give people an idea, with this amendment, someone who got appointed when I joined would just be facing possible reconfirmation this year. That's a looong time.

[Napoleon]

My administration again comes out in opposition to the politicization of the Court.

[Redalgo]

I support Senator Scott's amendment proposal for this quite strongly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: No Valid Entry
Status: beep!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am very reluctant to embrace this. In the RL I can assure you that it would only get passed over my dead body.


Only the perspective of this as a game and the inherent differences in that is making me somewhat open to being convinced here.

[Ebowed]

If this is a measure designed to promote greater interest in the affairs of the judicial branch, I think it fails to address the real problem.  Indeed, this is not the first time we have considered fixed terms for judges; it was largely defeated on the basis of opposition to politicization of the Court, and there is merit to the argument that the prospect of renomination, or lack thereof, could alter the interpretations of justices in legal questions.

[TJ in Oregon]

Accepted as friendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object


My openness to being convinced took a big hit with Ebowed's post, just so the proponents of this know where I am right now. If someone is suppose to sell me on this they aren't doing very well.

[Redalgo]

Actions of the judiciary are inherently political, and interpretations of the law subjective in their correctness. Though it is convenient for us to think of judges as being impartial, they like all the rest of us are vulnerable to a wide array of biases and prejudices. It is an inescapable aspect of the human condition. To be clear, I don't want to see the court filled with hacks, but terms provide for us a means to encourage accountability to the general public, provide opportunities for government to reappraise which people are best qualified for the posts, and ensure those who serve on the bench are of the highest degree of competency, approach their duties with an excellent work ethic, and are culturally representative of the masses.

Will the process be flawed and to one extent or another politicized? Probably. But the process already in place is quite vulnerable to becoming that way as well, and in my humble opinion is prone to concentrating too much power for too long a time into the hands of certain individuals. That is not to suggest I would oppose any renewal of the commissions served by honorable Justice Ebowed or his colleagues. But there may come a day at some point down the road where it honestly seems the court would benefit from some new blood, so to speak. Surely this is not an unreasonable check to place on the power of the courts, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not worried about checks on the power of the court, so much as preservation of the court as check on the legislative and executive branches and not becoming that of a rubber stamp to legislative or executive fiat.

[AndrewTX]

I'm not a big fan of all of this together. Although, I'm sure it would make some of the Presidential elections more intersting knowing that during that specific term, they can change up the court.

Still, I think it's better the way it is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has passed.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I've decided to oppose this.  There is a difference between expanding the Court and forcing Justices to be reappointed.  This bill would require Justices to essentially rule in a way that would please potential future Presidents, and I cannot support that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I've decided to oppose this.  There is a difference between expanding the Court and forcing Justices to be reappointed.  This bill would require Justices to essentially rule in a way that would please potential future Presidents, and I cannot support that.

Would you change your opinion on this amendment if we were to, perhaps, prohibit justices from being reappointed for a period of time?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Would you change your opinion on this amendment if we were to, perhaps, prohibit justices from being reappointed for a period of time?

I'd consider it.  My number one goal is avoiding the politicization of the Court, whether that involves judicial elections or forcing Justices to cater to the political desires of a President.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

TJ, your thoughts?

[TJ in Oregon]

I am open to ruling out reappointments, but only if we make it longer than a year. It wouldn't necessarily need to be quite 3 years, but I think a year would be too short if we're going to forbid justices from staying on multiple terms.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Two years is an extremely long time; I am comfortable with an eight month interregnum.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What a terrible idea.

[Sbane]

Can we impeach justices? It seems like that is all the power the Senate should have.