Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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 could support this.

Wasn't it Holmes who said, "18 years of Clarence Thomas is enough."