Steven Hill, director of the New America Foundation's Political Reform Program, in today's New York Daily News suggests that one of the ways to get rid of all the partisan problems in nominating a Supreme Court justice we're likely to see with the Elena Kagan nomination is to impose term limits on the Supreme Court.
Judicial term limits and mandatory retirement ages would ensure not only brilliant legal minds but also some balance of legal perspectives on the high court. Those two reforms alone would create a modest amount of turnover and ensure that one party or President does not stack the court. Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written in favor of 15-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and federal appeals court judges, as well as staggered terms.
It makes me a bit uncomfortable to think about this, but intellectually I think it makes sense.
Posted by: a2b4u2 | May 13, 2010 at 09:05 AM
An 18 year term would make more sense. There are 9 justices and therefore, every 2 years a new one would be appointed.
Posted by: J Schwimmer | May 17, 2010 at 08:02 PM