Novel Approach, Limited Supreme Court Justices' Years in Office.....

A Constitutional Amendment:

I believe that the founders chose a life-time appointment to the supreme court at a time when the life expectancy was dramatically less. I believe that their intent was that a Justice would serve for a generation. Even if I'm wrong, times have changed and so should the practice of SCJ appointments.

There are nine Justices. Each should serve one 18 year term with no chance of renomination. The terms should be staggered so a Justice is chosen by a President (with Senate confirmation) every two years. Should a Justice, for what ever reason, be unable to finish his term, the new appointee will serve only the remaining term. If that term exceeds 9 years, he or she is ineligible for re-appointment, if it is less, that person can stand for re-appointment at the term's end. This would put the SCJ appointments as "generational" appointments (18 years).

That's the easy part. the hard part is "how do we make that transition with the existing SCJ that have life-time tenure"? That's the part that I need help on.

Any comments or suggestions?

The founding fathers chose a life-time appointment in order to ensure that Supreme Court justices would be independent and unaffected by the political winds. The founding fathers specifically rejected ageism and the idea that a Supreme Court justice could not serve simply because he was very old. The founding fathers were very specific on these points -- and they were right. We have become an extremely ageist society. People really do gain wisdom with age, and that is what Supreme Court justices need.

Justices should be limited to 15-20 year terms with stipulation that when term is over, he/she cannot set on any state or federal court. If repubs want to push for constitutional amendment re gay marriage or flag burning or anything, we should push for this amendment. It would have to implemented via staggered removal of the justices already on the court so as not to remove all experienced justices at same time. I think it is an idea whose time has come, especially in light of how political the court has become.
Would say more, but gotta leave to get to work. In a rush now.

This amendment would come close to age discrimination. Plus, I would have hated to have lost even one day that Thurgood Marshall was on the bench. What good would it have done to have Reagan replace him with some other right winger?

and it's a hell of a term. 18 years. If the appointment is at 53 years old, the term ends at 71.

It seems to work out the way it is now. Even though we don't agree with everything the court does, it is not overwlemingly conservative. They are replacing a diehard conservative with another. Sandra Day was pretty conservative as well, except on a few key issues.

So, lesson learned, Let's get a Dem in the WH soon.