Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not necessarily, although 18 years certainly was selected in light of the current number of nine, and teh stagger wouldn't work so well if the number were larger.

What if the amendment to Article III simply said "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour, except that Congress shall have the power to fix a maximum term of service for judges of the supreme Court, . . .

The staggering will never be perfect because inevitably a justice will die before the term is up.

Anyway, Congress could set the length at whatever it pleases. (one could also include in the amendment a provision "maximum term of service, but not less than 18 years, for judges

We've talked about this idea before, and it's a good one, although I wouldn't want to leave the time period in Congress' hands.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've talked about this idea before, and it's a good one, although I wouldn't want to leave the time period in Congress' hands.

I think we also need term limits for Congress and the Senate. We have them in California and I think they work great.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I think we also need term limits for Congress and the Senate. We have them in California and I think they work great.

Tell that to Nancy Pelosi

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tell that to Nancy Pelosi

You tell her. You are her constituent, are you not?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tell that to Nancy Pelosi

And Feinstein - she's the one that killled it last go around.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we also need term limits for Congress and the Senate. We have them in California and I think they work great.

Agreed 100%. I would extend it so that a person can only serve a maximum of X years at any level of government. What happens in CA is that, once termed, pols go to a different position. Look at Jerry Brown for instance.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never have gotten enough credit here for my consistentcy with respect to civil rights. Most of you poo poo me because of the economic side, but I doubt you will find someone that backs personal liberties more whole heartedly than I.

I've known a lot of people whose views on liberty did not extend past the economic sphere.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed 100%. I would extend it so that a person can only serve a maximum of X years at any level of government. What happens in CA is that, once termed, pols go to a different position. Look at Jerry Brown for instance.

And Colin Powell. And Henry Kissinger. I mean, what's up with this "career public servant" crap? Experience is wayyy overrated. The revolving door should be set on a higher speed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed 100%. I would extend it so that a person can only serve a maximum of X years at any level of government. What happens in CA is that, once termed, pols go to a different position. Look at Jerry Brown for instance.

I don't mind that so much. It is when they sit in one office too long that is when the trouble starts.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed 100%. I would extend it so that a person can only serve a maximum of X years at any level of government. What happens in CA is that, once termed, pols go to a different position. Look at Jerry Brown for instance.

Oakland Uber Alles!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And Colin Powell. And Henry Kissinger. I mean, what's up with this "career public servant" crap? Experience is wayyy overrated. The revolving door should be set on a higher speed.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I do think public experience is way overrated. There are plenty of good leaders in the private sphere that could do at least as good a job as the career pols.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've talked about this idea before, and it's a good one, although I wouldn't want to leave the time period in Congress' hands.

I agree, and agree now only with my amended amendment. You'd definitely want a minimum number. And you'd, I suppose, have to draft it in some way so that it has to be a) consistent and b) not retroactive. So, they can 't appoint one guy for 8 years and another for 20. And once appointed, the term could not be reduced (although it could for subsequent appointments.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Captain
I like the first idea; of course, it would require that the constitution also set the size of the court. I believe some states have very lengthy terms like this, but am not sure how it works out.

I think the framers were very wary of setting too much detail about the court in stone. The Supreme Court was, after all, one of the bigger experiments in the new Republic. There are very few models for the Supreme Court, and some of the ideas, like lifetime appointments, were reforms people had been clamoring for over many years.

It might have been useful to have a mandatory "revisit" of the experiment after thirty or forty years, in which case it wouldn't surprise me at all to have seen a change like an 18 year term.
But then, they may well have had little idea of just how reluctant we'd all be to change the document.

I'm not sure the second idea belongs in the Constitution. Perhaps just a clause enabling the Court to develop its own mechanism for dealing with recusals and absences.

I like the first idea quite a bit. I think ensuring that each president regularly got to appoint someone would help depoliticize the appointment process somewhat.

Agree with the Cptn that the second idea doesn't belong in the Constitution -- as I recall, the only court mentioned in the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and the other federal courts are created by Congress.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I do think public experience is way overrated. There are plenty of good leaders in the private sphere that could do at least as good a job as the career pols.

Did you vote for Ross Perot?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never have gotten enough credit here for my consistentcy with respect to civil rights. Most of you poo poo me because of the economic side, but I doubt you will find someone that backs personal liberties more whole heartedly than I.

2. I'm down witdat.