@bluebelle Congress could do that, but so many of our greatest justices (RBG, John Paul Stevens) get really good after a couple of decades.
Instead progressives need to push Biden and a dem congress to take back what was stolen, and also to modernize the fed judiciary. It's too small as it is. Litigants wait years for court dates. And no more "blue slips" (senators from certain states have a right of refusal for judges appointed to the circuits their states are in). This is another norm the GOP broke. They filled liberal circuits with right wingers. We should fill conservative circuits with reasonable judges. Honestly, that's all you need. You don't even need super liberal judges. They all move to the left eventually, except the ones who were extremists to begin with (like Thomas).
Dems need to take their power and use it.
The word is that Feinstein is in early stages of dementia and there are backstage decisions on an eventual (possible) resignation -- that's the word.
Like Amy Coney Barrett, some of these appointed judges had never tried a case in court. Is it possible to limit their terms?
You didn't tag me, but unfortunately, @lynnventura is incorrect; Congress alone cannot do that. Judicial life terms are hard-coded into Article III of the Constitution, so changing that would require an amendment. Congress can, however, expand the judiciary at all levels if they deem it necessary to do so, and in my not-so-humble opinion, they should definitely do so. Quite apart from the SCOTUS, the federal court system is far too small and inefficient to handle the case loads they are being asked to deal with.
@tgraf66 @Lynnventura
Thanks for both your comments. I had wondered what, if any changes could be made to the current structure of both the Supreme Court and the federal court system. Your comments help me understand the limits and options involved with both. Lynn, I hadn't considered the wisdom that comes with many years of service and see your point. Our government seems so antiquated in the federal court system and the electoral college. I want our republic to stand and prosper with changes reflecting society today, not be stuck in structures from the 1790's.
Article III doesn't expressly grant lifetime tenure, so I think congress alone can limit the terms with a simple majority, but I still wouldn't favor that. I'd prefer something more balanced in favor of the 21st century, not the 18th. :)
Last night I threw 3 cards on Barrett. I used the Thoth deck.
I asked: Please tell me about Amy Coleman Barrett and her nomination to the Supreme Court.
It doesn't look good for her which seems a bit surprising.
1st card- 9 of Swords/ Cruelty. I am sensing a painful time.
2nd card- 8 of Cups/ Indolence- a dark card, broken and loss felt
3td card- Reverse 9 of Cups-/ Happiness (not happy). It looks like the happiness light is shooting away from the cups. What was happiness is leaving, fast.
I am not sure how the Happiness card ended up reversed It was the only one in the deck that way so it seems that it was meant to be.
I am wondering if a few Republican senators vote NO... and that ends the process?
I would love any thoughts family. I am an amateur at this.
@lynnventura Article III, Section 1 states:
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...
Regarding this, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 , among other Constitutional interpretation sites (all of them that I've found, in fact) says:
The language about “holding offices during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean that the only way federal judges can be removed from office is if the House of Representatives impeaches them, and the Senate convicts them, of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Only fifteen judges have ever been impeached (that is, formally accused by the House of Representatives) and only eight have been convicted and removed from office. For practical purposes, any judge who does not commit a crime (or do something equally bad) has “lifetime tenure” and will stay in office until he or she dies or voluntarily steps down.
This interpretation hinges on the fact that there is no other Constitutionally mandated or permitted method for removing federal judges, so creating one would require an amendment.
The terms could be modified - again by amendment - but such a change must be carefully considered since that could mean a much more volatile judicial system. Term limits would force judges to be replaced much more often and those appointments could - and likely would - be even more political than they are now. In addition, as you noted, there is definitely wisdom conferred by experience.
Rather than limiting the terms, I would propose that the vetting process be required to be completely public, and that no one could be appointed to any federal bench without having had a minimum of 10 years of serving as both a trial and appellate judge in other levels of the judiciary.
There are so many moments to come that will take our breath away, and not in a good way. Let's save our strength.
? ? ? (I felt this deserved more emphasis than just a "like".)
Right, but how does one define "their offices?" Would that be just a supreme court seat, or any position on the federal bench? As with all things legal, it's all in the wording. :)
I believe there's a bill that's going to be introduced soon (by Ro Khanna), proposing term limits, that seeks to avoid a constitutional challenge. And even if there is a challenge, can you imagine SCOTUS reviewing that case? That would be fun.
@lynnventura That is specifically defined already. The language specifies both the Supreme Court and inferior courts, i.e., circuit, appellate, etc. Since the Constitution rightly concerns itself only with the federal government and not the states, the phrase "their offices" includes any and all federal judgeships appointed by the Executive, as they all are.
Unless the bill by Ro Khanna is a proposal to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court would have no issue with declaring it unconstitutional, as they should in light of Article III, Section 1 regardless of the political leanings of the justices.