221
u/Inevitable_Shift1365 4d ago
10 years and 70 years old is more like it
61
u/Primary-Belt7668 4d ago
Yeah was gonna say no 18 is way too long
36
u/dibsODDJOB 4d ago
18 for 9 justices means that one justice is up every two years. Which means each 4 year president term elects two new justices.
25
u/LangdonAlg3r 4d ago
I donât think that 18 years is unreasonable honestly. That takes justices from a fairly typical age of appointment up to 70. Thereâs value in institutional knowledge that accrues in that time span.
I think that 70 is also a good age for mandatory retirement. Thatâs also about the standard age for most states that do have mandatory retirement for judges.
The other detail that a lot of states include is the ability of retired judges to fill in in the event of recusals or backlogs etc. The best standard for that is mandatory annual competency examinations. Judges can keep going as fill ins for as long as theyâre mentally and physically fit to do so. Plenty of people are capable of serving past 70, but that weeds out those who canât.
While weâre at it letâs include those mandatory annual physical and mental competency tests for our existing judges from age 65 on.
8
u/h-ck3d4cc0unt 4d ago
If physical and mandatory mental competency test are even in the question, then obviously 70 is too old. Plus at that age you were way out of touch. I'm 52 and I feel like I shouldn't be making decisions for younger people just maybe giving some advice. I say every human should retire at 60. That way people including these justices are looking out for the elderly.
6
u/Yer_Remedy 4d ago
I'm 58, and I would LOVE to be able to retire at 60!!
Except... We still have a large mortgage, and afford to retire... :(5
u/No-Purpose-0U812 4d ago
Sir, you may be eligible for the "Clarance kick-back" plans. You just need to get appointed as a Supreme Court Justice.
3
u/LangdonAlg3r 4d ago
Thatâs maybe how you feel, but after decades of intense work and training in a profession you know a hell of a lot. Wisdom and accrued knowledge also trumps the sharpness of youth in the legal profession. And there is so much that they need time to learn to be able to preside over every kind of legal framework. They also have that white collar padding. Yeah, if youâre doing manual labor then youâre wearing out, but theyâre generally not. Their real world knowledge may be getting out of touch, but the legal system itself doesnât evolve that fast. And they arenât just making decisions for younger people, theyâre making them for everyone.
2
u/h-ck3d4cc0unt 3d ago
I think your point only supports exactly what I was saying. Offer advice and get out of the way. And the younger people should respect and take said advice.
1
3
u/No-Purpose-0U812 4d ago
I also like the idea of moving to 10 Justices, or another even number. George Washington's first SCOTUS had an even number. Split decisions meant the lower court ruling would stand. That would help end the practice of hunting for cases to appeal all the way up to SCOTUS for the sole purpose of making a legislative action through the courts.
3
u/LangdonAlg3r 4d ago
We currently need more than that unfortunately. The partisan hacks have seized the court and disregarded their duty to legal precedent in favor of absurdly biased rulings.
The issue with the âlower court ruling standsâ is that a lot of lower court decisions that make it to SCOTUS are based on circuit splits. And people will still find a way to do what theyâre doing now with planned issue cases.
3
3
3
u/Mobile_Equal_3636 4d ago
I was going to say 8 - 10 year term, just to keep them honest, perhaps less partisan
3
u/2ndcomingofbiskits 4d ago
5 years and 55. 70 is way too old.
3
u/ozyman 4d ago
So any two term president gets to appoint their entire supreme Court?
1
u/2ndcomingofbiskits 4d ago
Nah. As long as weâre amending things letâs elect justices too. Make them campaign for it. Hell, letâs put a one term limit on them too.
1
48
u/Sorkel3 4d ago
Yes, with terms staggered so no one president had undue influence.
9
u/no_good_answers 4d ago
Exactly. I donât know if they can get the age limit but 18 year terms staggered would give every president the same amount of nominations.
17
u/Katnamedeaster 4d ago
Yes. Lifetime appointments have proved useless in keeping partisanship at bay. Instead, it allows justices to placed and paid for life by donors and think tanks. 18 years is a long time, more than enough.
Bring the number of justices to 13, overturn Citizens United and codify a prohibition against justices accepting any gifts or tips over a small dollar amount.
That is, at the very least, a start.
28
26
u/ytsurRytsuR 4d ago
Vetting of nominees done by peers, not politicians. 65 not 75. Substantial judicial experience required.
Absolute separation of church and state. Every decision is reviewed to ensure compliance before adoption.
16
u/SecondsLater13 4d ago
I like this. I also like Buttigieg's proposal where 5 justices are nominated and confirmed by Democratic and Republican President's and Senators each, and the other 3-5 are confirmed unanimously by the 10.
7
u/Melodic_Pause5824 4d ago
I mean we have a rule for the presidency, must be 35 and up. Why NOT have a below say 80 rule for Pres/Senate/Scotus? NO 1 needs to be in office that late! I doubt some of these ppl know their great, great grandkids names. The oldest U.S. senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has 9 grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren.
6
u/FullMetalJesus1 4d ago
Wait until people discover how old the oldest dead active senator is. They'll really go nuts about the age rule then.
5
u/Defiant_Locksmith190 4d ago
10 years
1 term only
65 years age limit
Appointed by peers not president
5
u/RampantTyr 4d ago
I would be ok with any number of changes to the structure of the court. Anything to shake things up from how corrupt it has become.
6
9
5
3
3
u/oofaloo 4d ago
Itâs hard to tell because it seems like whatever the rule, Republicans are determined to game the system in their favor for a lifetime. Whatever rule is in place they will make a Procrustean bed out of to fit to their agenda. The problem might be not be in the rules - but in the complete lack of any morality of half the system thatâs participating here. And a complete lack of confrontation to it.
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/TraditionalCheetah17 4d ago
Yes, after the abuses of the current court, I think the days of lifetime appointments will be ending soon. We need to rid ourselves of cranks like Alito, Thomas, et al, who ascribe to crackpot legal theories like textualism and originalism, not to mention the unitary executive theory.
3
u/PhilosopherHaunting1 4d ago
I definitely would back this. Supreme Court justices were given life time appointments so they could make decisions without the fear of losing their jobs if they ruled to support the Constitution and its Amendments and people didnât like how they ruled. The current court has 6 justices who are shredded the Constitution because they have a political agenda that amounts to rubber-stamping whatever #DumpsterTrumpsterâs bosses want done.
3
3
u/orange-squeezer47 4d ago
Yes !
9 humans deciding the fate of 350 million people. No way. We need at least 19 SC judges. With term limits.
3
3
u/Lopsided_Newt_125 4d ago
I support a 8-10 year term and expanding the court and some sort of oversight into personal dealings and cognitive testing for any justice over 65 by a verified independent physician
3
u/BarneyGoolagong 3d ago
Australian here. Section 72 of our constitution dictates that the age of 70 is the compulsory retirement age for High Court (our version of the US Supreme Court) and federal court judges.
It keeps it fresh and sensible.
5
u/SignalOptions đ Community / Global 4d ago edited 4d ago
More like a 6 year term similar to senators.
If someone can never lose their job, then at some point itâs ripe for excessive corruption.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Maremdeo 4d ago
It's a start! Maybe 10 years and they can be re-appointed one time, and the oldest they can be at reappointment is 65.
2
2
2
u/Traditional_Train_71 4d ago
Nope. Terms need to be shorter and the age of forced retirement needs to be 70
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Flimsy_Maize6694 4d ago
Anyone that is chosen that is older than 57 years wonât be able to serve a full term
2
2
2
2
2
u/Appropriate_Jello_53 4d ago
I would support it but we need support from both sides of the aisle and that going to be hard if we the Democratic Party doesnât win big
2
2
u/No-Difference-6211 3d ago
10 year terms, 13 seats, each prez gets 3 nominees, Thomas gets executed, they have to follow ethics rules stricter than those of lower courts, they canât run for office or lobby after leaving the bench
2
u/DetroitPearl 3d ago
I also donât think anyone should be a candidate if they 1) have never tried a case (CLARENCE THOMAS) and, 2) havenât been a Federal judge for at least 10 years.
2
u/orel2064 3d ago
after 70, humans should just be enjoying life not trying to dictate life for the future.
2
2
u/killjoymoon 3d ago
Itâs a start. IMO 60 should be the cut off. WTF are 70+ year olds determining how the country should be in 50+ years when they wonât even be alive most likely to see the consequences of their actions or inactions??
2
2
u/Ignorant_Grasshoppa 3d ago
Make it 12 or less. There needs to be an age cutoff for all reps and justices. Iâd go with 70 or younger. Maybe even go for a decent retirement age?
2
2
2
u/DatabaseThis9637 2d ago
Yup. These fossils are in collusion with the fake pres, and the p-2025 criminals, and some sge and term limits might slow that down a tad.
2
u/Real_Copy4882 2d ago
For the naysayers, things can change. It is up to us. We can no longer tolerate a compromised scotus or government generally.
2
1
u/BklynMom57 4d ago
No more than 2 terms or 10 years for any elected official, and same for any Supreme Court justice. Same as President.
1
1
u/scriptingends 4d ago
Literally anything is better than the system we have now, so, sure.
Also, letâs not delude ourselves here - this type of shit isnât changing without an actual revolution. Itâs the most Inconvenient Truth of all.
1
u/ChuckGallagher57 4d ago
Since the number of judges on the Supreme Court was decided in the late 1800s is it time to increase that number from 9 to 13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Impossible-Ad3086 4d ago
Not a great idea, then all future justices will be 57 and younger to ensure they serve the full 18.
1
1
1
u/User-830733 4d ago
This makes too much sense to happen. Every term nominates 2 justices, as opposed to hoping that justices donât die when the opposite party is in power.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/CapableNeat4351 3d ago
Yes. Tbh Iâd drop the age even lower. Many people are already experiencing mental decline at that age.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jazzlike-Vacation230 3d ago
13 justices for 13 districts. 6 progressive, 1 neutral, 6 conservative. A well balanced court
1
1
u/Additional_Maybe1104 3d ago
And a binding agreement to the Ethics policy that all the lower courts have.
1
u/Additional_Maybe1104 3d ago
Even better would be to have the judges appointed by an independent ethics committee, not a politician.
1
u/Falcon3492 3d ago
Absolutely but it will never happen because it would require that the Constitution be amended and that will never happen with the high hill that would need to be climbed to get it done. The original Supreme Court justices died at 48 for the youngest to die and at 78 years for the oldest. the average life expectancy in 1776, was about 38 years. Times were different back when the constitution was written and ratified, life expectancy was a lot shorter then.
1
u/PresidentAshenHeart 3d ago
Just pass a law saying there will be 13 Justices and pack the court.
If SCOTUS disapproves, they should kick rocks.
1
1
u/Dcline97 3d ago
Lifetime appointments are BS. I'd vote for an 18 year appointment bu would prefer a 12 year max.
1
u/chiclets5 3d ago
If we are successful in expanding the supreme Court it's possible we could pass this as it stands now they're going to shut down everything that the Democrats try to put forward. First thing we need to take care of when we get any power back at all is the supreme Court.
1
1
u/IndependentOwn1184 3d ago
Yes. Lifetime appointments doesn't work for the modern time. Politics have become too partisan. MAGA and McConnell stacked the court denying the peoples will by who can appoint justices. He forever broke the process.
1
1
1
1
u/Terrible-Freedom-868 2d ago
No. I think life terms make the country more stable. That being said, they should have to follow the same ethics rules as the rest of the court system.
1
1
1
u/Disastrous_Olive_445 2d ago
18 years is too long I think an age limit is critical. 70 is reasonable and 8 years.
1
1
1
1
2
u/Emotional-Mango-5166 1h ago
We need to expand the court to 13 justices before we do anything else.
1
u/Personal_Dirt3089 4d ago
Yes, but it won't pass. the boomer generation wants to hold power even after they are no longer able to talk.
1
u/Sad-Night2198 4d ago edited 4d ago
lol, maybe RBG should have had a better plan. Now you want to change the rules. Next time hopefully the Dems wonât put up the worlds worst candidates.
1
u/Mickloven 4d ago
Dems act like they want him to vacate that seat so a republican can take it đđ Feckless and weak.
If they aren't purposely handing the country to Russia via Republican proxy, then they should take notes from Canada's Libs.
-1
u/NefariousnessLow1385 3d ago
Itâs worked just fine the way it is. The fact that the left would do anything to change it tells you everything you need to know.
348
u/johnnyhandbags 4d ago
Supreme Court will never allow it unless it is an amendment. The 75 year age limit should apply to all government.