Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd do it the other way around. No retirement age, but only 18-year appointments. There'd be no incentive to appoint young people (e.g., Thomas), so most would be appointed in their 50s or early 60s. That would clear them out by the time their in their young 70s. At that point, give them a healthy pension or a seat on an appellate court. The worry about future jobs at that point also is illusory. Who would want to become a senior partner just to make some cash? (And if they did generally, you'd see them leave now, and they don't). Without a possibility of reappointment, there'd be no greater political pressure.
(BTW, 18 years to ensure a new justice ~ every 2 years, so 2 per presidential term)
|
I agree more with Noonan, whose underlying message, as I infer it from this and previous essays on the topic, is it would be nice if some of these people had the class and character and respect for the office to step down when their faculties obviously prevent them from fully effecting the duties of their office. This applies to both sides of the ideological gulf.
In this day and age, thanks to the legacy of the borkers and their pals the Clintons there are few with such statemansike demeanors.
