Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren is further pitching his new idea (with Steven Calabresi) to limit Supreme Court Justice terms to 18 years. Given that the average stay on the Court is now 25.6 years, will 18 years really solve the problem of “mental or physical decrepitude”? Stevens remains sharp as whip as far as I can tell; and O’Connor surely remains perfectly competent. Rehnquist is ailing, no doubt, but he was perfectly fine until this term — everyone expects his resignation in June (for real this time!).
I suppose the idea has one thing to recommend it: Justices would stop being able to choose to step down during a Presidency with which they are in political sympathy. That would surely be good so Justices’ political leanings can be further swept under the rug. But I’m not really sure I’m eager to see more fights over filling judicial vacancies…
Posted by Ethan Leib on April 8, 2005 at 11:08 AM
Comments
Like many other issues, the discussion requires identifying the real problem. Nominations to the court now come from a small group of essentially judicial elites instead of the previous wide group of members of the legal profession. The only people selected are sitting federal judges who have previously gone through the confirmation process and therefroe are free from private controversy. We no longer get people like Hugo Black, Bill Douglas or Earl Warren. Justice O’Connor was the last non-judicial candidate and she had the fact that she was the first woman going for her. The nominees tend to be people in their 50’s and thus they end up serving longer. We don’t select someone like Justice Powell who had a long and distinguished legal career before his nomination. But even he ended up serving a long time. Until the entire process is substantially changed we will get sitting federal judges in their late 40’s or early 50’s who will serve until their 70’s.
Posted by: Stuart Shiffman | Apr 8, 2005 12:15:59 PM