Should The Supreme Court Have Term Limits?

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: In The News

(AP)

It's a story that reads like the start of a joke about lawyers. "What do you get when you have 33 legal academics and jurists with nothing better to do...?"

Not content with writing boring law review articles, or fighting among themselves about whose navel is best contemplated, a group of leading lights in legal scholarship have gathered together to try to argue in the court of public opinion that the Supreme Court needs a structural overhaul.

Not surprisingly, since all these people are lawyers remember, there is no agreement even within the group about whether and how that can happen.

Here's how the Washington Post's Robert Barnes puts it: "For starters, the group proposes a form of term limits, moving justices to senior status after 18 years on the court. The proposal says that justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions 'will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.'

"To get around the Constitution's prescription that justices serve for life, the group would let justices stay on the court in a senior role -- filling in on a case, perhaps, or dispatched to lower courts -- or lure them into retirement with promises of hefty bonuses. It would set up a regular rotation on the court by providing for the nomination of a new justice by the president with each new two-year term of Congress. If that results in more than the current nine justices, only the nine most junior would hear cases."

Ain't gonna happen. But that doesn't mean it's altogether bad to talk about it. The Surpeme Court's docket has fallen significantly during the Rehnquist Era (and now with the Roberts Court) and there are legitimate questions now about the way in which law clerks help select the cases that are heard each term. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the Justices to feel a little indirect pressure from the people most closely associated with their work.

There is one part of the letter from the scholars that I would have liked to have seen omitted. I don't think that elderly judges, including Supreme Court Justices, lose their ability to "reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern" and who says they ought to, anyway?

I am perfectly comfortable, in other words, with the notion that at least one branch of the government is run by adults.

(CBS)
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here.

8 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by Gailann1949 April 1, 2009 3:08 PM EDT: Yes, definately term limits. All government offices should have term limits. Limitless terms give way to too many opportunities for greed, personal political agenda and power. There should also be only one pension opportunity within government.; Reply to this comment


by Gailann1949 April 1, 2009 2:39 PM EDT: Yes, there should be a term limit on all government offices. The terms may need to vary but there should definately be term limits. Limitless terms give way to too many opportunities for greed, complacency and power mongers. There should also be only one opportunity for a pension within government office.; Reply to this comment


by thewritewoman March 31, 2009 1:04 PM EDT: Term limits would defeat the purpose of the 3 separate and balanced segments (albiet sometimes doesn't appear to be the case, i.e., the bush v gore issue) of our government. Interesting, too, is that the party who holds the constitution as so dear is usually the one that cries 'lets change it' when their ever-so-ongoing-tilt-to-the-right is met with stumbling blocks!
Where we really need term limits in in the legislature!!!!; Reply to this comment


by strangeworld February 23, 2009 8:39 PM EST: As long as I've been paying attention to politics, as sure as the sun coming up in the morning, the republican party calls for term limits when they have found themselves and their particular brand of idiocy out of the sphere of power. Likewise, as soon as the republicans are back in power, term limits are no longer mentioned for the duration of their term. Republicans need to grow up, their behavior in this matter amounts to a spoiled child crying to change the rules of the game when they find themselves behind because of his/her lack of ability. I'm all for term limits - let's start them right after the republicans again gain control of Congress...maybe 2028 or so.; Reply to this comment


by kutyadog1 February 23, 2009 8:34 PM EST: Yes, there should be term limits and they should retire at a resonable age.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 February 23, 2009 7:41 PM EST: I%u2019m not so sure about term limits for the US Supreme Court but, I believe that there should be some sort of AGE restriction set in place. Let%u2019s say, keep the panel%u2019s senior members possibly under 100 years old!!; Reply to this comment


by waitn2ctruth February 23, 2009 7:37 PM EST: NO! It's bad enough we don't have limits for legislators. We don't want the Judicial Branch beholding to lobbyists and special interests.; Reply to this comment