Supreme Court Justice Term Limits? Time for a Change??
By artistry
@artistry (4151)
United States
January 22, 2010 2:12am CST
Would you be in favor of term limits for Supreme Court Justices instead of lifetime appointments? In view of the latest law passed by the justices, overturning decades of protection laws, from corporate influence, through contributions of enomormus sums of money to politicians, should we perhaps rethink their lifetime appointment status? If it is a constitutional issue, maybe we need an amendment? What say ye?
2 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
26 Jan 10
To understand why the Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president for life you need to know what the founding fathers were concerned about. The were concerned that one branch of government would become too powerful so they created a system of checks and balances. By having the president appoint justices the will of the people is being taken into account. With a lifetime appointment, in theory, the decisions are non political and the Justices can act independently.
I think the decision of the court was the correct one. If the government can restrict the speech of a business then they can restrict the speech of groups or individuals. The founding fathers knew the danger of big government and wanted to people to be in charge. Thomas Jefferson once said that when the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom.
1 person likes this
@artistry (4151)
• United States
26 Jan 10
...Hi there bobmnu, All that is truth, but why would there be a problem with a 15 year term or something. They could still work on an independent basis, just not for life, I tend to think they get complacent and do things that are not seemingly in the public good. The checks and balances are needful. But, with this latest decision, there is no way that individuals can be heard in an arena that is filled with cash by the wheelbarrow full ready to buy candidates. You are not going to tell me that you think this should be unlimited in the amounts allowed to be contributed. There have to be some restraints applied here or we basically have no democracy, it's all out there for the highest bidder. Thanks for sharing, take care.
@artistry (4151)
• United States
26 Jan 10
..Hi again bobmnu, I will leave you with this thought, watch the level playing field be controlled by the ones who have the most money. Unless, again, if this is not adjusted in some way for a check on the spending, neither side will have any sane form of democracy. Take good care.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Jan 10
I think they should be elected by the people...not appointed by a president. I agree with term limits. Let them service 4 years than have to rerun for election if they want the job again. But limit them to two terms.THen they have to go.
1 person likes this
@artistry (4151)
• United States
22 Jan 10
...Hi lilwonders, Your discussion made me think about this, so thanks. I too, think they should be elected, or term limited. I am sure the constitution addresses this, and that's why it is lifetime. But let's get real, without anyone to answer to, they can very well do what they want by lobbying each other, the stronger voices win. This last vote was deplorable. No thought of the effect, did not care it seems. I am ready for term limits on them. Stop the craziness of unchecked authority. Take care.
