Should the SCOTUS have a mandatory retirement age?
In Australia justices of the high court have to retire at age 70. That seems like a good system. Maybe I'm ageist but it just seems like a bad idea to be entrusting the most consequential source of judicial analysis to someone who's nearly 84 years old.
no, there should just a term limit on the order of 20-25 years.
Let's give her till at least 2022
The problem is the checks and balances makes no sense
So the president is supposed to curtail the power of the court by selecting the justices with approval by the senate. If the senate is the president's party, the supreme court is just an extension of the president's ideology and feels like a part of the executive branch. It wouldn't be this way if it was down to luck what slots a president got to replace, justices retire during an administration that agrees with them ideologically. And if the senate opposes the president, they can only do that so long before they have to approve someone without looking like partisan faggots.
>entrusting the most consequential source of judicial analysis to someone who's nearly 84 years old.
well the job of the supreme court is to decide whether or not something falls within the constitution, which is really an unwavering standard so age shouldn't matter.
their personal opinion on the subject isn't supposed to influence the decision when the system is working correctly
>which is really an unwavering standard so age shouldn't matter.
spoken like someone who knows literally nothing about law
An age limit just means politicians would game the timing like crazy. It's a bad idea.
Reminder that the SCOTUS has very little actual power.
The SCOTUS can make any desicion they want, but the president can still do pretty much anything he wants as long as Congress doesn't stop him. Almost all of the power of the supreme court is dependent on how the other two branches enforce it.
Also, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Only protection of religious liberty. Separation of church and state is just a fabricated SCOTUS construct.
>Reminder that the SCOTUS has very little actual power.
They have a lot of ACTUAL power. That is, in reality. They are not supposed to -- but they do.
They shouldn't be women, gays, pedofiles, traps or partisan
No elders are the wisest.
ALl jews on the court and not one protestant?
Who's running this country?
Meme magic her death
ʎɹʇunoɔ ʎɯ ui sʍɐl ǝɥʇ ʇnoqɐ llɐ ǝɯ llǝʇ
Catholics you filthy heretic!
I don't care what country you live in - constitutional interpretation is not subject to a single standard. There are strict literalist judges who interpret the words of the statute according to their ordinary meaning (much of the direct scope of the heads of legislative power of congress comes fromthis), originalists and purposivists who interpret it according to the intentions of the framers, people divine other constitutional principles from the structure of the text (the doctrine of separation of powers has been divined from the scotus as arising from the separation of legislative, executive and judicial power into different chapters), and some interpret it according to contemporary values as a so-called "living document". And in fact, scotus interprets more than just the constitution, they have jurisdiction to hear any federal matter. Different benches have endorsed different principles at different times, there is no one "correct" method of interpretation, so yes, it is more of a cerebral exercise than a rubber stamp for what you might think is mere common sense.
In addition, they collectively need to be across more case law than any one single judge could possibly know, they need to synthesise the principles of the common law, apply doctrines of interpretation to often complex statutes, and hear and engage in hours and hours of oral argument.
And excuse me, but I think someone in their 80s and potentially 90s depending on how long they hold out are less equipped to do that than are people in their 50s and 60s.
I suspect there are means to move out an SCJ who shows advanced signs of dementia.
nigga you expect me to read all that?
I expect you to act like a grown up and admit you were talking out of your ass when you said a scotus judge's role as an arbiter of constitutional meaning is straightforward, yes.
they have life tenure. You can remove them if they die, if they choose to retire, and if they are impeached
Totally agree. Boot their crusty asses out and invite new blood in. They are so ripe, their innards are turning to dust.
well ruth likes to think of the constitution as a "living document" that can be interpreted however the fuck she pleases. so maybe not so unwavering
What is this magical perfect standard you two seem to know about?
the constitution isn't supposed to be "interprereted" its strict guide lines meant to be followed literally
being a living document means it can be amended, not that you can disregard and change its meaning at will
The constitution provides this head of power to the federal government: "The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy".
Can the federal government establish public schools operating out of the navy teaching whatever they like, setting rates of pay and conditions of employment for the teachers and so on provided they make said public schools have some connection to the maintenance of a naval force? Public education is traditionally reserved to states, but on a strict literalist interpretation of the constitution, there doesn't seem to be an issue. You'd have to look to the intentions of the framers in drafting that HoP in order to raise an argument that that would be an infringement of the federal government on the domain of state legislative power.
Without express provision to the contrary, the incidental scope of basically all heads of power allow all kinds of federal incursions on states' rights. Literalism alone is insufficient.
SCOTUS should be reviewed for judicial activism every year. And this review would be conducted by committee from the the house of representatives. There needs to be a check. The House needs to also present the problems of judicial activism a lot better than the Senate.
disregard this i suck cocks
You're making some very good posts.
>And excuse me, but I think someone in their 80s and potentially 90s depending on how long they hold out are less equipped to do that than are people in their 50s and 60s.
I don't believe this idea is as clear as it appears. The people kept on electing Robert Byrd into his 100s (though you could attribute that to an error of the voters), which I believe shows you cannot make such a blanket restricted age limit for such an office without alienating many qualified judges. Look at Bush's choice Bork. He's good, but he's no Scalia or Thomas---and if a few other judges were forced to retire over Bush's 8 years, you really think he would be able to find 3 or 4 more judges on par with even Bork? I don't think so.
Plus, you run into a sorts of issues when their deadlines are known. For example, if we knew Ginsberg or Sotomeyer were going to be forced to retire next year, then that allows the lower courts and attorneys to plan when their case hits the court for their preferred ruling (since Trump would fill their seats).
Of course, I do believe there is something sketchy about having no recourse for displacing a senile judge, but that's another discussion.
She will die next year. My digits confirm this.
kek
Originalism sounds good, explain to me why it sucks
He's saying originalism isn't as cut-and-dry as people would have you believe.
Because the constitution, regardless of what many might think, is not a perfect document. Its writing was a collborative project and interpreting it according to the framer's intentions requires you to source myriad extrinsic materials, like the federalist papers. And, as invariably happens the more statutory material you have, you'll end up having judges disagree on what the framers intended, or what priority their intentions should have where they come into conflict, and so on. It's messy work. It doesn't necessarily suck, I'm sure it has a lot of utility. But it has issues same as any interpretive tool, and ultimately it will end up being an exercise of the judge's personal opinions and values what tool ends up getting used, and how it ends up getting used.
Simple exercises of constitutional interpretation don't usually make it to the scotus. It's the controversial matters that they hear.
As long as they're in good, thinking order, they can go as long as they want. Human lifespans are ever increasing, and many stay sharp well into their 100's.
I'd say either the president or a committee in Congress should question the mental health of a Justice, they would be subject to a panel of doctors who would make the decision.
thanks senpai
Anyway, I don't really care. My point was just that
"decide whether or not something falls within the constitution, which is really an unwavering standard"
is dead wrong. It's a very wavering standard.
We can delete her during Trump's first term. We have the memes.
Interpretations are heavily influenced by culture... perhaps the founding fathers had intended for the constitution to be understood by a prevailing White Christian culture.
They shouldn't be Americans.
Most burgers are idiots.
>when the system is working correctly
Is there a single component of your system that does work correctly and as originally intended?
Yes. 75, maybe 80. Otherwise you get seniles on the bench, like Thurgood Marshall towards the end.
But leftists will never allow it because muh civil rights trump common sense and an understanding of trade offs.
>They have a lot of ACTUAL power
>not supposed to
They are 1/3 of an equal system of checks and balances. They should and do have equal power vs the other branches of government. Yet the courts are reactive only, their power limitation is they can't create anything. They only rule and SCOTUS is the top level of that court system.
but if the other two branches DID their jobs we would not see SCOTUS having to take on some of the the issues they have in the last few years.
I also have no problem with a life time appointment. They are some of the sharpest legal minds we have to offer. Unless they are show to no longer be competent there is no reason to replace someone on the court just to do so.