Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
I'd be all for a twenty or twenty-five year term limit on SCOTUS. The whole point of a lifetime term was to take politics out of the equation, but it's obvious retirements are based almost solely on politics.
|
If the idea is to remove the influence of politics from the nomination proceedings, I'm afraid that would have almost the exact opposite influence.
If you knew specifically when a given justice or group of justices were to retire, can you *imagine* how politically charged a given Presidential election cycle would become?
Imagine if, in 2008, we had *known* that President McCain or President Obama would be replacing 3, maybe 4 of the sitting Justices. As nasty as that election got near the end, I can't see any way it wouldn't have been at least ten times worse than that. Instead of the possibility existing for one or the other to significantly change the composition of the Court, you'd have a near certainty. It might make for increased turnout rates at the ballot box, but you know you'd have a big uptick in claims of voter fraud or intimidation, as well.
I just don't see anyway imposing term limits on the SCOTUS doesn't make the situation worse.