Absolutely.
As should congressmen and senators. As should even those heads of departments who were NOT chosen by the American people to head those departments...
Unfortunately time and the system seem to remove the tenuous ties that federal employees, these "public servants" (note: said with the intent to remind people of who pays all these people's wages) have with the needs and everyday lives of the American citizenry.
The idea behind the lifelong appointment of Supreme Court Justices was to keep them out of the political fray as much as possible.
Do we then change the Supreme Court system of appointment to a democratic election or continue to leave it in the hands of the president and senate. Either way, if terms are established and term limits imposed, the system of judicial review risks becoming as much a farce as our Legislative and Executive branches are now.
No, having a limit on their terms in office is not going to cure any problems.
There surely is a problem with too many decisions going beyond the intent of the lawmakers, too many examples of legislating from the bench, but surely imposing on the Justices a limit to how long they can do their jobs has absolutely nothing to do with improving how they do their jobs. Limiting their terms only tells them "Regardless of whether you are doing your job right or wrong, do your job for just X amount of years and then you have to retire," does not solve any tendency to legislate from the bench.
Judicial activism is a disease, but term limits is not the right medication.
Having people who don't have email or use the internet making judgements on laws impacting that environment is stupid and bad.
Tech is only accelerating and these people are stuck in 1980.
After 17 years, they should be gone. Period.
I am going to vote 'yes' but tentatively -because the idea behind lifetime appointments is fairly sound. Since they aren't being elected, they can freely make decisions based on law and jurisprudence, instead of trying to please would-be supporters for their next election or appointment.
So, rather than imposing term limits, I would recommend a better mechanism for impeachment, and stronger controls for corruption.
*I think the current Supreme Court is fulled owned and operated by corporate interests and the 1%. We need to impeach several of them who are clearly deviating from the U.S. Constitution, and the interests of the common good.
Would you mind telling us who should be impeached and what portions of the Constitution they have deviated from?
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have a friend who is. She recently graduated from judicial college in Washington D.C., and we have discussed the Citizen's United and FEC v. McCutcheon rulings at length.
Most of my opinions are derived from our talks.
She feels, (and I agree with her), that the founding fathers did not envision that freedom of speech would ever mean "money" and that groups of businessmen would ever be considered "individuals" or maintain the rights of actual human beings under the law. Currently, rights that the Supreme court is granting to such "individuals" were not meant for groups (corps), who are in essence a "legal fiction" created to shield actual humans if their corporation fails etc. This legal fiction should not be the seat for the endowment of actual human rights - but that is what the current scotus has done.
My problem with their interpretation is this: If I am a citizen, and Halliburton is a citizen, then I am at a terrible disadvantage. And, if money is speech, then the 1% has a whole lot more freedom of speech than I do. The Re-defining of words within our Bill of Rights and Constitution is subverting the original intent of the framers.
In my friend's academic opinion the original intent of allowing campaign contributions was to support candidates *in your own state* - not to funnel endless, dark money to influence politics in areas where you don't reside, or have a stake in the local decision making.
Here are a couple links with good information about where I think this court has gone awry:
npr.org/2014/04/26/306837618/justice-stevens-six-littl...the-constitution
m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supre...citizens-united/
Here is the scotus blog, where I follow some of what they are doing regarding FEC v .McCutcheon: scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-e...tion-commission/
Who would I impeach? Scalia.
Moveon.org has listed out some compelling reasons here:
petitions.moveon.org/sign/impeach-justice-antonin
And, the Daily Beast has a decent argument for doing so here:
thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/14/remove-a-stain-o...tice-scalia.html
I wish I could offer you more, but again, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I feel, and I think many Americans do, that the scotus is not longer acting in the interests of the common good, but for the benefit of a few wealthy "citizens" - for this reason I support impeachment.
If I am a citizen, and Halliburton is a citizen, then I am at a terrible disadvantage.
To remove the freedom of Halliburton to press/lobby/contribute to causes they feel the need to promote/oppose would also remove the freedom of individuals to collectively do the same. This would remove any political power from PAC's and unions. It would be a restriction to the people to freely assemble for a political cause, which is expressed in the 1st Amendment.
In my friend's academic opinion the original intent of allowing campaign contributions was to support candidates *in your own state* - not to funnel endless, dark money to influence politics in areas where you don't reside, or have a stake in the local decision making.
I happen to agree with this. Political money should not be allowed to cross state lines except in the case of the presidential election. Why should a person in Montana be allowed to donate to a Texan's run for the Senate? In the case of corporations, they usually operate across state lines. So removing their freedom to use money as speech would be in violation if the 1st. I see both sides and have to say we must allow corporations to use their money in politics otherwise the impact would be much the same as I described above. If you take away freedom of assembly of corporations, you have to take away the individuals' right to do the same.
Freedom of the Press certainly does mean "money" though, as it requires resources and labor to distribute literature, or any other media.
The freedoms of "The Press" as described in the 1st amendment is not confined to "journalism" as we understand the concept to day. It referred to any publication, and was later expanded to virtually all media by implicit intent, as text publication (press) was the only form of mass media at the time of the establishment of the Constitution. Press and Speech have practically merged in modern times due to the nature of the technology, but as both are protected in similar manners, the distinction is without difference.
The federal government cannot disallow publication of political information either because it's free speech, or free press, or both. We don't have to be all that clear on which it is between the two because it is definitely at least one of them.
"Freedom of the Press certainly does mean "money" though, as it requires resources and labor to distribute literature, or any other media."
This is a false equivalency. Money does not equal Press anymore than the 'Gym equals Strength', or 'Plastic Surgery equals Beauty'. One may be a means to the other, but this does not make them equivalent. Besides press can be gotten without money. All you have to do is something outrageous, and you'll get plenty of press. I'll provide just one example: FEMEN, who uses nudity to spread political messaging. theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/20/naked-female-warrior...pless-protesters
(further, strength can be found outside a gym and beauty does not require plastic surgery)
Freedom of the press as given in the 1st amendment is not confined to journalism, I agree with you there - but it is limited by certain boundaries, namely "Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection." (wikipedia 5/28/2014) I would have to say that political ads frequently involve false statements of fact, threats and incitement. There is no justification for this kind of scotus interpretation of the First Amendment, that gives special treatment and undue protection for political speech in the form of expensive attack ads.
Besides that, my position hinges on the abuse of the word "individual" - not "press" - therefore, you aren't actually responding to the argument I have laid out above. I am picking a bone with the creation of a legal fiction, the "corporation" and then treating it as if it were an actual human individual by endowing it with rights that were originally specified to belong to all 'men' - but not groups of men.
The problem arises here: If I am a citizen, and Halliburton is a citizen, then I am at a terrible disadvantage. And, if money is free speech, then some of us are 'more free' than others. (referencing "Animal Farm" by Orwell) Clearly, this radical inequality of expression was not intended by the founding fathers.
This is the problem I have with Citizens United and related decisions.
Actualy, stunts are a means to leverage other people's press and media resources for your own ends, but actual distribution of media is what I mean by the Press. Also, there is not qualifier that only an individual has any of the rights described within the 1st amendment. It states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It makes no distinction between individual rights or organizational right of free speech and press.
Perhaps I should have stated this point more clearly, but my point regarding freedom of press is that money is a implicit necessity of media distribution, with the distribution part being a key part of press, along with the content. The first amendment protects the distribution of media, with the acknowledged exceptions of outright false and damaging statements along with the other exceptions you mentioned (i actually disagree with SCOTUS on the obscenity point because it's far too subjective and a moving target). However, it's important to also note that the primary purpose of the 1st amendment protections of speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances is to protect political activities, so if anything, legal restrictions on these activities will be far more likely to be blocked by the 1st.
"And, if money is free speech, then some of us are 'more free' than others." You're confusing "freedom" and "capability" in this case. You and a wealthy individual should both be protected from the government blocking your political speech. The fact that the wealthy individual has more capability and resources in order to make his speech heard is completely independent from the legal freedom to do so. I am not more free, in the legal sense, than a paraplegic, though in many cases I can be more capable. Freedom is a lack of artificial blocks of one's capability. Freedom does not mean equality of circumstance or capability.
I think the rules governing the SCOTUS are fine the way they are. They would be no different than any other regular person and have their opinions change as times change. That doesn't excuse them from deviating from the intent of the Constitution (legislating from the bench), but it allows for opinions to be weighed with the times.
While I have disagreed with decisions in the past, they know more about the law than I do and I have a trust in them that allows me to accept their decisions. The opinions they give that ruffle feathers could be changed in the future given different approaches to cases.
Can you imagine having to watch our divided Congress having even more hearings and witch-hunts regarding Supreme Court nominees? I can't stand any more. Let them stay in for life.
No, the presidency shouldn't have them either.
That would be utterly ridiculous. Even the suggestion is laughable. The best thing about the Supreme Court is that they don't have term limits, so thus aren't worried about election/reelection like many politicians are, and thus they aren't ruled by that fear/desire to be reelected that our Congress and first-term Presidents are. I do agree that they've overstepped bounds and the Constitution is being stretched to fit the needs of those it was never intended for personal gain/profit, but to suggest we add a term limit to the Supreme Court? Are you insane? That would destroy the very fiber of our current legal system, threadbare as it is. If you think the Supreme Court is controlled by "big money" now, just wait until term limits are added.
The don't run for election now and they should never run for re-election.
After 17 years, they should be done.
I Feel very strongly that there should be term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Perhaps that would make them more responsive to public opinion/societal trends. This very activist right wing court is totally of out step with the U.S. public and rightly acts as though it is impervious to any backlash to its many wrong-headed decisions. Many of right wing hard liners such as Thomas refuse to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.Term limits may rein them in a little bit.
If we go that route then either do it on age like 75 or 20 year term.
After 10 years, you're out of there. Done. Finished.
Absoultely, I feel that congress, supreme courts, presidents, and all politcal figures should have term limitations because they are not acting as god, here! God helps all people. However, politicians feel than can do whatever and however they want, a big big no no!