Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Apparently, Washington life doesn’t suit Souter, and, frankly, that’s the best thing I’ve heard in his favor.
A lot of people now speculate on whom our president will nominate, and how it will impact our country’s future. What will Congress do with the candidate? Will the ugly maw of politics sully the whole process … again?
One insight to glean from the second-guessing, speculation, and rumination is how sad it is that so much power rests on one selection.
When our leaders select a Supreme Court justice, they are selecting someone for life, really. Very few justices do as Souter has done, retire early, before their grasp on law and philosophy and politics might have dimmed a bit.
And that means that the job — already strategically important — becomes the Pearl of Great Price around which a lot of ugly politics scrambles.
How much better it would be were the Constitution amended to set terms for the justices, and limits to those terms!
Why not set terms to something like, say, eight years, and limit them to two? Sixteen years is plenty enough time in this office, way too much in most others.
Such a limit would make the position a little less crucial, and the turnover in the Court more evenly rotating.
And, thus, the appointment process a little less hysterical and ugly.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
6 replies on “Replacing Souter”
Dear Paul: Article one Section eight of U.S.Constitution is the Job Description (JD) for the congress. No where in the JD description does it mention Health Care — - Free Drugs — - ‑Pensions (soc Sec) or Education so How can congress pass laws in these areas? Congress can not as it is not in the (JD) for congress. We have forgot what the constitution says There is no such thing as a “Living” Const But when you turn out 35,000 lawyers from all the government schools every year youo have a resl mess and a problem. To gain freedom we need to abolish the federal income tax to make the congress more tr ansparent abolish the Federal Reserve Act that gave us Instant Inflation. from 1791 when the states ratified the first ten amentments to 1913 122 years we had the greatest growth in the history of the world. We lost BOTH POTH FREDOMS in 1913 SINCERELY JACK GREEN
Jack Green
620 Webster St
Napoleon, Oh 43545 – 1703
(419) 599 9272
I am a Veteran of the Undeclared Korean War Police Action You may publsih this anywhere anytime
I was honorably Discharged as a Captain
Jack Green-who cares abuot that phoo pha rah‑I am a veetean of three wars-doesn’tget me a cup of coffee anywhere, unless the owner is a friend. Also, I was a major when I resigned. Now for the Court of no resort: How about appointing Justices for ten year terms, so the same president cn’t normally appoint the same ambulance chaser twice? Then they either have to stand u for the Kennedy ritual once again or be limited to ne term, however the bill is written. Of course, this puts us in the realm of term limits, which seems to be a third rail for most of our “dedicated” “public servants” On the other hand, a better deal is just to vote against the incumbents in every election until we get honest govt and they start impeaching the justices we have now.
Hi Paul,
This time I do not agree. It seems the current process has sustained this country for a couple hundered years. Term limits for the sake of term limits is not a good idea. I do agree about the power and influence the Justices have, but that is not a bad thing. I have also noticed as most people get older they mellow out a little. Maybe that is not a bad thing either.
We have a minimum age requirement for people who seek federal elective office. Given the nature of the court, a Supreme Court appointment should be the culmination of a career. No one under sixty years of age should be appointed to the highest court in the land. Combine that with a maximum term (justices can still retire early) of fifteen years. There would be no pressure to appoint younger and younger justices in order to maximize a president’s impact on the court. Appointees would have a record of achievement (whatever field they come from) for the Senate to consider — no blank slates in the future.