Posted on Nov 25, 2019
It’s Time for Term Limits on the Supreme Court | National Review
2.05K
12
11
2
2
0
I disagree with this article. If democrats are worried about Justice Ginsburg passing during Trump's tenure, and wish to avoid a shift to the right in the thinking of SCOTUS, how would term limits help? I think term limits would increase the turnover in SCOTUS, making the SCOTUS more political, and less stable, than it is today. It was DESIGNED by the founders (read the Federalist Papers) to be the stability of a democratic republic. By giving them positions for life, they could be more objective and circumspect in their analysis, and not beholden to political or social fads which may come or go. How much more time and money does this nation need to spend on never-ending election campaigns, and do we really want to add SCOTUS to the list of campaign preppers (as they get ready for the next cycle of incoming justices, surely they would weigh in with advocacy like never before)?
It’s Time for Term Limits on the Supreme Court | National Review
Posted from nationalreview.com
Supreme Court
Elections
Democracy
Republic
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
It isn't just about Ginsburg potentially leaving the bench due to illness or death. It has far more to do with Gorsuch and Kavanagh. The democrats see the demographics going their way so if they can find a way force justices out, they think they will have more appointments sooner. This is the rank manipulation the left in this country attempts to do when they cannot win at the ballot box today.
John Fund's logic is weak on this and is only self serving in that he thinks it will reduce the issues around confirmation. He seems to forget that fighting is really a one way street. It is the democrats fighting. Look at the Obama and Clinton appointments. Most went without issue.
Perhaps we should work more on congressional term limits, not supreme court justices.
John Fund's logic is weak on this and is only self serving in that he thinks it will reduce the issues around confirmation. He seems to forget that fighting is really a one way street. It is the democrats fighting. Look at the Obama and Clinton appointments. Most went without issue.
Perhaps we should work more on congressional term limits, not supreme court justices.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree with you. If we impose term limits anywhere it should be on our legislatures.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, in this day and age we need limits on the supreme court, congress and the senate, it seems the only one we limit in how long they can serve is the president. As for the supreme court at the very least we need to be able to remove them at some point when they cannot physically or in some cases mentally do their job. I have no problem with Ginsburg in general but the only reason she has not resigned is politics.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
I agree with your point as far as Congress, but not the SCOTUS. The framers clearly intended them to be able to rise above the politics of the day and think about what is best for the nation in the long term. Term limits for SCOTUS would get them putting their collective fingers in the political wind for every decision as they rose through the judiciary in hopes of getting a "Term" in the Supreme. We need stability and prudence in (at least) one branch.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - There should be something, for life we end up with our current situation an aging justice who cannot do their job but hangs on for political purposes. As it stands right now the democrats would proper her cold corpse up in her seat to prevent Trump from appointing another justice.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google