[Mb-civic] Supreme Court term limits - Jeff Jacoby - Boston Globe

[Ian]

Like the issue of abolishing the electoral college, which arises wit each election, this issue arises each time there is a new SC appointment.  However, this is the far more critical of the two issues.

Many of those opposed to SC term limits argue that it is important that SC judges' terms not be limited to one or two presidential terms.  But I never understood why a compromise could not be reached.

I have posited (for well over two decades) that SC terms should be for 14-16 years, with a maximum of 20.  This would provide a compromise that would allow SC judges' terms to overlap the terms of at least 2 or 3 presidents, while eliminating "life" terms and allowing for "new blood" on a more frequent and consistent basis.

I would be interested in hearing others' views on this.  With all the intellectual "muscle" in Civic, perhaps my idea - or a mutually agreeable modified version - could form the basis of a true movement.

What say ye?

Peace.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: William Swiggard 
  To: mb-civic 
  Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:55 AM
  Subject: [Mb-civic] Supreme Court term limits - Jeff Jacoby - Boston Globe


  Supreme Court term limits

  By Jeff Jacoby  |  September 7, 2005

  LESS THAN two months before he died, Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a statement firmly denying the ''rumors of my imminent retirement" and announcing that he would remain on the job ''as long as my health permits." That July 14 statement included no information about his medical condition. It was something he didn't talk about -- not to the country and apparently not even to his colleagues.

  Justice David Souter told The New York Times he had thought Rehnquist's health was improving and was shocked when he died. But he acknowledged the ''unconscious anxiety" that had been hanging over the Supreme Court since Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer last fall and spent more than four months undergoing surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. ''Even after he returned to the court," the Times reported, ''the chief justice did not discuss his condition or prognosis with his colleagues."

  By all accounts, Rehnquist was a very private man, not given to unburdening himself for public consumption. Certainly no reasonable person would have wanted to see the reserve of a very sick man thoughtlessly violated. But Rehnquist was also a public official, and issues of legitimate public concern were riding on his mental and physical abilities. Wasn't the nation entitled to know something about his medical situation and how it might be affecting the work of the court?

  The Constitution grants life tenure to federal judges, and Rehnquist was under no legal obligation to step down because of illness -- not even an incurable cancer that was visibly robbing him of his strength. But there is growing support, both public and academic, for abolishing life tenure on the high court, and cases like Rehnquist's are part of the reason why. Charles Evans Hughes, chief justice from 1930 to 1941, found it ''extraordinary how reluctant aged judges are to retire." In the intervening 70 years, the problem has only grown worse.

  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/07/supreme_court_term_limits/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Mb-civic mailing list
  Mb-civic at islandlists.com
  http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050908/810703a6/attachment.htm