Editorial of The New York Sun May 2, 2021
The latest news about the Supreme Court is that most Americans want to end lifetime appointments for the justices. That’s the finding of a new Ipsos poll for Reuters. The poll discovered that 63% of adults support term or age limits for Supreme Court justices. Only 22% say they oppose any limits.
This strikes us as a moment for constitutional fundamentalists to do some creative thinking. We ourselves have always favored lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court and other federal benches. The Founders ordained that judges get to serve during good behavior. Yet we wouldn’t be averse to amending the parchment — keeping lifetime appointments but setting a minimum age for a Supreme Court justice.
What most reformers mean by age limits is that justices would have to step down upon reaching, say, age 70. What we favor is preventing them from acceding to the high bench until they’re 70. The problem is an unintended consequence of life tenure.............These be-robed tykes might claim to be conservatives, say, or liberals, or mere umpires. Only when it’s too late do we discover that they’ve yet to develop a stable and mature judicial philosophy.........
Finally, establishing a minimum age of 70 would open a vast new field of possible Supreme Court nominees just in the population of circuit judges who have senior status or qualify for it. Or those on state supreme courts who have been forced to retire by age or term limits. They are all deemed too old. Yet such sages often have experience decades beyond the age of 50. Why seek callow youth for a long term rather than wisdom for a shorter one?........To Read More.....
My Take - Well, at least he's got the general right idea. Limiting their time in office, but I don't think his solution will correct the problem, which is, you can't trust these people, no matter what the system, and it will never be fixed to any degree if they continue with life time appointments, and I don't care what anyone says, after 70 senility starts to creep in, at least with most people.
I'm almost 75, and I think I'm smarter, more knowledgeable and more insightful than I ever was, but I have no delusions that senility's creeping in on me. So are we to think having senile old jurists is better? I don't think so.
Limiting their time in office and having reviews to keep them in office presents a better solution. None will be perfect, but at least there will be a way of getting rid of people like Warren, Brennan, Roberts, Ginsburg, and others.
So, here's the solution I posted in my Friday, June 26, 2015 article, It's Time For a Twenty Eighth Amendment!,
If the Constitution is going to really be the document that governs government, and is the real and legitimate law of the land, it's in serious need of reinforcements. It’s time for a 28th Amendment that would impose strict term and age limits on the federal judiciary.
There are three
levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the Appeals level and the
Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year limit with a review after five
years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee
would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court
before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and
they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in
the future. No jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course
at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their
nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist may
serve after the age of seventy.
Here’s the fix! Abolish the FED, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments and
pass a 28th amendment. Everything else will fall into place
No comments:
Post a Comment