Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices?
Since we didn't get to finish today's discussion (as per ALWAYS), let's finish it here (as per ALWAYS) Based on the arguments we reviewed today, as well as other research you may have done, I would like you to write your opinion (based on evidence we / you read) below. Please write your own opinion + comment on someone else's (in a meaningful way)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In regards to today I don't think there should be term limits because if every president got to Nominate someone nothing would get done because of opposing parties quite similar to congress and its shutdown; the Supreme Court would no longer be a entirely separate branch it would be more connected and influenced by the others. Stability is needed in the government to have constant change will lead to nothing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. We nominate several other political leaders effectively (to an extent, of course). We can do the same with Supreme Court justices. Influence by "the others" (not exactly sure what you mean by that but I'm assuming the People) - is absolutely what we need. That's what democracy is.
DeleteA constant change (and it's not THAT constant) is absolutely necessary in today's government. We are a rapidly progressing nation and change is going to occur. It must. It is a good thing.
I agree with Luxurie, but I'd like to add that we wouldn't HAVE to vote in the entire group of justices in all at once. It can take place over the course of a few terms for different presidents. If we did do it in one, swift motion, it would make the president seem as if he/she is trying to remove them all for his/her/their own benefit.
DeleteI think there should definitely be term limits within the Supreme Court. Instilling term limits in the Supreme Court strengthens democracy. The justices in the Supreme Court are in office for terms that are just too long.
ReplyDeleteWith lifespan improving, justices are serving longer terms than they were meant to before. With such a progressing nation and world today, shorter terms in the Supreme Court are necessary. Mental capability should also be considered as a factor of the argument against long terms.
I agree with Luxurie. We need new judges that are keeping up with the present society. It isn't very beneficial for a judge that's been in court for more than 20 years to still have the same ideas from back then. I think that somehow hinders democracy.
DeleteYet there is an exception it's states "good behavior" their position is also on watched, but if you think about it parties were made to represent the people yet Because of its continuation to grow sometimes more in power then the other allowing nothing to be done. That was a change by the people.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that there should be term limits on the Supreme Court justices. Like we read in class, the justices are prone to becoming old and senile, and there minds may not be as sharp as they were in their younger days. What I find worrying is the "intellectual autopilot" argument from the article. The old justices have their own rigid way of thinking, and their ideas are difficult to change. It's like the saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley to some extent. As I mentioned in my comment with the example of abortion, these justices have their own thinking and ideas which are difficult to change and people out there might be waiting for laws to change but that won't happen until they die as sharp it sounds.
DeleteI believe in term limits also. The Supreme Court justices are the highest officials in the land. If the justices have their position for life it is like having a dictator (not very democratic of us) The founding fathers could not infer the future and its advancement in medicine. Back then the average life span was way lower than it is today. So life term could have just been 10-15 years in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteYes it is true a nomination from the president is like leaving his legacy behind, but it is also leaving his mind set and views in government. A mind set that might be bias to a case. They need term limits, and we need fresh faces. In the article we read today the author suggested 18 year limit. Which is not bad, better than 30+
I think there are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to having term limits in the Supreme Court. In some way, it is good that there are no limits because then we don't go through so many changes regarding laws. If there are limits, we will always have justices with completely different perspectives all the time which will be very difficult and it won't be easy for these justices to get to know each other well and get along if every other President continues to elect new justices while also having term limits. But then again, it can also not be so good to not have term limits. For example, as of now abortion is allowed in the U.S. because majority of the justices voted I'm favor of it in Roe. Vs. Wade and there might be thousands of people waiting for this law to change but it might not happen until we have other justices come in which is very unlikely since the current justices are there till they die basically.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority and I believe there should be term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Just how Hairo mentioned above, the justices hold the highest power in the land. They are responsible to interpret the Constitution and decide our policies in America. Yet, these justices are independent from the political madness that is seen in Congress and the President which is a good thing, but as bad as well. These justices are not elected by us, the American public. They are nominated by the President while the Senate confirms the nomination, but where is our say? They are very separate from the public yet their decisions will ultimately effect our lives. Honestly term limits should be implemented. The article suggested an 18 year term limit and I agree. The limit will allow new justices with a fresh mindset to interpret the Constitution which is necessary considering how our population is constantly changing.
ReplyDelete