The right wing has loaded up the court with people who will probably hold seats for 20 years or more.
In the past, the lifetime appointment often corrected itself. By the time a person had the credentials to be considered for a SCOTUS seat, they might be expected to live only another 10-15 years. But that haws all changed in recent decades. The GOP has been naming much younger justices and life expectancy is much longer (for those who have good health care. For those without good health care, life expectancy is declining.) Roberts was appointed at age 50. He could be the Chief Justice for 40 years.
Any of us could die of a heart attack tomorrow, of course, but actuarially speaking, the only seat likely to come up in the next 4 years if Obama is reelected is Ruth Bader Ginsberg's. If Romney were to be elected, there might be a move to push Alito, Scalia, and Thomas to retire so that Romney could name some more 40-year justices.
Most people don't realize that there is very little about the Supreme Court in the Constitution. the SCOTUS has basically written its own job description over the year. While much of that has been beneficial, there are certainly cases where the court usurps power and uses it in ways that are harmful to our nation. I believe we are on one of those pendulum swings where the court needs to be brought under control, and it will take more than a routine appointment or two to make that happen.
In particular, Congress has the power to define how many justices we have and their terms of office. My view is that with a 9-person court that has little or no turnover for years, it is inevitable that there will be predictable divisions, such as the 5-4 line that is pervasive today. It seems to me a much better solution would be:
- a court of 15 justices
- each appointment is to a single 15-year term, with one seat coming up each year
This says that a 2-term President would have the opportunity to appoint 8 justices -- a slim majority, and of course that is subject to Senate confirmation. If a President were so popular as to have a very strong Senate majority his or her entire 8 years, then the President would be able to dramatically shape the court. But that 8-justice majority would only dominate the court for a few years. Moreover because every Justice would know the court would continue to evolve and regenerate every year, there would be a greater incentive for Justices to reach decisions that are not likely to be overturned as new Justices come on the bench.
As it stands now, somebody like Scalia has a motivation to pass the most extreme judgments because he is planning to be n the court fighting for that until he dies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
