So there's that. I'm good with the storyline.
![Thumbs Up :thumbsup:](./images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices
A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”
The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.
If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.
Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.
![]()
I have long thought that having justices serve a single 18 year, non-renewable term is a great idea.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:07 pmhttps://thehill.com/homenews/house/3575 ... -justices/Democrats introduce bill to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices
A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”
The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.
If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.
Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.
![]()
https://hankjohnson.house.gov/sites/han ... MS_xml.pdf
US Constitution wrote: Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
This is a variant of a law professor's brainchild. (I fergit which one.)noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:51 pm However, I don't see how this can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.US Constitution wrote: Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
One of the perks of being an unelected, untouchable cabal!raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:57 pm Make them declare the law unconstitutional and themselves judicial gods. Great PR.
Justice Thomas no longer listed as GWU faculty after Roe backlash
“Justice Thomas has informed me that he is unavailable to co-teach the seminar this fall,” Gregory Maggs wrote in an email.
By OLIVIA OLANDER
07/27/2022 01:56 PM EDT Updated: 07/27/2022 07:57 PM EDT
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is not listed as an instructor for any courses on the website for George Washington University’s law school, where he’s taught since 2011, a removal that follows the high court’s controversial decision undoing decades of precedent protecting a nationwide right to abortion access.
Thomas, among the five justices who voted to overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973, also authored a concurring opinion suggesting the court should also revisit other precedents, including those entitling Americans access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships. His role in the decision prompted a GWU student to launch a petition signed by 11,300 people calling for Thomas to be removed from his teaching post at the university.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/2 ... h-00048202
Retired SCOTUS justices can (and some do) sit in lower federal courts, but all of that is voluntary. A law compelling a SCOTUS justice to not sit on SCOTUS would almost certainly be found unconstitutional (by SCOTUS, natch).humblescribe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:59 pm I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
US supreme court justice mocks Prince Harry and Boris Johnson’s criticism of Roe v Wade ruling
Samuel Alito, who authored the argument overturning the landmark case, dismisses complaints by foreign leaders at conference in Rome
Reuters
Fri 29 Jul 2022 04.33 BST
US supreme court justice Samuel Alito has mocked prominent figures around the world who have criticised last month’s ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision.
In his first public remarks since the decision, which has led to various conservative US states imposing abortion bans, Alito dismissed criticism of the ruling, which has come from the likes of British prime minister Boris Johnson, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau.
Alito, a conservative justice, also took aim at Prince Harry who referenced the abortion ruling in a speech at the United Nation’s last week.
Alito’s previously unannounced speech was delivered on 21 July at a conference on religious liberty in Rome hosted by the University of Notre Dame law school. Video of the speech was posted online on Thursday by Notre Dame.
“I had the honour this term of writing I think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Alito said.
“One of these was Boris Johnson, but he paid the price,” Alito joked, referring to Johnson’s plans to step down following criticism of his leadership from within Britain’s ruling Conservative party.
“But what really wounded me - what really wounded me - was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” Alito added in a sarcastic tone, referring to his ruling overturning the Roe decision that had legalised abortion nationwide in the United States and recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy.
Alito‘s references to the abortion ruling, which came during a speech about the importance of religious liberty, were met with laughter from the audience.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ade-ruling
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:55 amThomas, among the five justices who voted to overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973, also authored a concurring opinion suggesting the court should also revisit other precedents, including those entitling Americans access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships.
Hush, woman. A MAN was speaking.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
While I don't argue with you, Bob, what compels the Senate to act on any potential SCOTUS nominee? One would think that the majority leader could hold all nominations in abeyance until the stars aligned just so. What if Clinton won in '16. McFossil could have sat on any nominee until he lost the leadership position or a Republican gained the White House. If the Senate were still in Republican hands and Clinton won a second term, we'd be down to six justices with the death of RBG and the retirement of Breyer (assuming he actually would have retired.)bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:08 pmRetired SCOTUS justices can (and some do) sit in lower federal courts, but all of that is voluntary. A law compelling a SCOTUS justice to not sit on SCOTUS would almost certainly be found unconstitutional (by SCOTUS, natch).humblescribe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:59 pm I don't read anything into the plain language of that paragraph that prohibits a federal judge from returning to an inferior court, only that they hold "office" for as long as they choose. And "office" does not imply Supreme Court exclusively.
Such a statute also would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.I do think that there needs to be a statute that eliminates the gamesmanship that McFossil did in 2016.
Regardless, this proposal will never get to Biden's desk.
The "religious liberty" of the majority to legislate their beliefs.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
The will of the voters. Or, more precisely, the will of enough voters in enough states to influence the majority leader.humblescribe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:12 pmwhat compels the Senate to act on any potential SCOTUS nominee? One would think that the majority leader could hold all nominations in abeyance until the stars aligned just so.
Speculative fiction already has been written about a not-so-distant future in which justices keep dying, and the president and the Senate can't agree on the replacement nominees, so more and more seats go vacant.If the Senate were still in Republican hands and Clinton won a second term, we'd be down to six justices with the death of RBG and the retirement of Breyer (assuming he actually would have retired.)
Yes; for example, Brennan initially was a recess appointment; he was appointed in 1956 but not confirmed until 1957.Can a President make a Recess Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?
Recess appointments serve until the end of the congressional session.If he did, what would be the term, just until the Senate reconvened, until the next Congress?
Unconstitutional, as they weren't confirmed by the Senate for that office.And how about some feedback on my idea of the President being able to bypass Senate confirmation by appointing a sitting Judge who is already Senate confirmed, to a provisional seat on the Court when a sitting Justice reaches a certain age?