Mandatory Retirement Age for Supreme Court Justices?

[Chreteau]

The lead topic on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" today was mandatory retirement ages for federal judges, including justices on the Supreme Court. The topic was based upon an article written by Norman Ornstein and published in yesterday's Washington Post.

Click here to read To Break the Stalemate, Give Judges Less Than Life

The lifetime appointment, which is written into the U.S. Constitution, is meant to free the justices from the influence of political pressure.

One idea suggested in the article is to create 15-year term limits, which would outlast any possible Presidential term by at least 7 years.

Another idea, suggested by a caller to Washington Journal, is to hold public elections of justices.

My question to you, should there be term limits on federal judges and Supreme Court justices?

[Kenshiro]

I like the idea in principle, but I don't think the problem for the judiciary is outlasting a president-it's outlasting a party. As long as the interests of factions get into the process, it's going to be corrupt. So, while I like the idea, I don't see it doing much to solve the deadlock. Besides, remember how Earl Warren turned out? IIRC, he was installed as an ideologue and ended up becoming highly activist.

[sweetascandy010]

I think that it would maybe be good to do it the way they do for circuit judges (at least in Illinois anyway, I don't know how you Missourians do things), but anyway, make them run for retention. No one can run against you, but a certain percentage of the voters have to vote yes in order for you to stay.

[the_red_chimp]

Who cares if it outlasts any Presidential election? It's still a bad idea. Towards the end of their term, they'll be either slacking, or trying to get in with a major party. And can you imagine when an ex-justice ran for President and got it? We might as well meld Executive and Judicial right now.