The Supreme Court needs term limits now.

[QueerDuck]

It was Justice Clarence Thomas’ 78th birthday this week, and he’s been on the Supreme Court for over 34 years. The Supreme Court needs term limits now.

[Klarkashton]

1. 34 years of utterly incompetent votes.

[Bmoboy]

2. But then Trump could replace him with Cannon

Two more years ...😱

[kentuck]

3. 18 years should be enough for any Senator, Congresman, or Senator...

They tend to lose interest in the people when they stay longer, in my opinion.

[QueerDuck]

5. Agreed. If I wouldn't trust a 1998 Dell desktop to run my household budget today...

Agreed. If I wouldn't trust a 1996 Dell desktop to run my household budget today, I don't know why we're trusting a 30-year lifetime appointment to run the country. No one should hold that job longer than it takes for a box of Twinkies to finally go bad.

I want my Supreme Court Justices to serve a term length somewhere between "the age of a fine wine" and "the time it takes for me to go through three cell phone upgrades.

If they can outlast a refrigerator warranty, they have been there too long.

[onenote]

10. Here are some of the Justices your 18 year rule would have forced from office

William O, Douglas
John Paul Stevens
John Marshall
William Brennan
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Thurgood Marshall
Louis Brandeis

And Trump would get to replace Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. Welcome to an 8-1 Supreme Court for at least 9 years to come.

[kentuck]

16. And would they not have been "great" if they had only served 18 years?

Yes, they all should be replaced but not at the same time. Stair-stepped by the most senior first. Surely they could figure out a formula that would be fair to everyone?

[maxsolomon]

4. "Now"?

There's no scenario where term limits for any federal office are enacted "now".

[QueerDuck]

6. It's a figure of speech about urgency, not an expectation of instant magic. But, fine, let's change the wording to...

"The multi-year legislative and constitutional process to implement Supreme Court term limits should commence immediately."

How's that? But, personally, I think that just doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though. Does it?

[MineralMan]

7. OK. How do we do that? Do you know?

[QueerDuck]

9. First, we all form a giant circle, hold hands, and wish really hard.

Then... if that fails, I suppose we have to go the boring route: a Constitutional amendment via Article V or Congress passing a statute and hoping the current Court doesn't strike it down.

Personally, I'm pulling for the magic circle.

[sarisataka]

13. The magic circle is more likely to work

Than the other options.

Spoiler alert- SCOTUS would strike down a Congressional term limit statute before the ink could dry.

[MineralMan]

14. Well, unless we can win strong majorities in Congress,

elect a Democratic President and manage to elect Democratic majorities in a lot more state legislators than we now have, we might as well just form that circle and be ready to shed tears when it doesn't do a damned thing.

It's a difficult process we're facing. It's not a joking matter. We can't get there by calling for action NOW. We have to work our asses off to get what we need to TAKE action.

That''s not what I see being called for widely. More's the pity. We insist on things, but don't do the required work. So it has been for some time. Perhaps it's time for a change in that direction.

[QueerDuck]

15. Let's do that too!

Yes... but, as you can see... using the word "NOW" leads to pedantic scolding and ridicule... so proceed with caution.

It would take a constitutional amendment and any legislative attempt to short circuit or bypass that would be challenged and taken to the USSC.

However expanding the court is just a legislative process and would be much easier if we held all three branches of government. But... the filibuster would also have to be killed, otherwise, this too seems like an unlikely scenario.

[onenote]

8. Justice William O. Douglas served for over 36 years

And retired at age 77 only because he had a stroke.
He was a legendary progressive and had he been forced from office after 18 years, he would have been replaced by a republican president and not participated in many of the most significant supreme court cases in history.

Also, are we talking about limiting the number of years a justice can serve or a maximum age? If RBG, who didn't begin serving until she was 60, had been forced to retire in 2008, her replacement might have been appointed by Bush.

In other words, one should be careful about what they want.

[QueerDuck]

11. Fair points on the history! But designing a modern democracy...

Fair points on the history! But designing a modern democracy around the hope that our favorite octogenarians never get sick or time their retirements perfectly feels a bit like gambling the country on a roulette wheel.

The goal of term limits isn't to fix the past. Instead it's to create a predictable, fair system for the future where everyone gets regular appointments, regardless of who is in the White House.

You're right about Douglas... he was a legend. But for every Douglas or RBG, the flip side of the coin is a Clarence Thomas or a lifetime appointment of a 40-year-old ideologue who stays on the bench for four decades.

In the end, a regular, staggered 18-year term limit gives every single president two picks per term (not including deaths) which actually lowers the desperate, partisan temperature of the whole confirmation process.

[jmowreader]

12. We could do this...

Each president gets to choose three justices in his first term. The three who've been there longest will be retired. If we have another DFT who has a split term, he doesn't get to choose another three in his second.

[Locutusofborg]

17. A Constitutional Amendment

must be ratified by 38 states to become a part of the Constitution.
Not going to happen any time soon for ANY amendment.