Supreme Court Needs Term Limits: Legal Eagles

Urge end to lifelong terms, judges' case selection

By Matt Cantor, Newser Staff

Posted Feb 23, 2009 8:26 AM CST

(Newser) – The US judicial system is in need of a serious overhaul, law experts write in a letter to congressional leaders. They argue that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t keep their posts for life, instead taking 18-year terms before a shift in status, the Washington Post reports. Further, they say, the justices shouldn’t be allowed to decide which cases they’ll take on.

That policy fuels an image of a court “not just powerful but arrogant.” Instead, there should be a separate division of justices who review cases and send 80-100 to the high court annually. Last year, the court gave 67 opinions, the lowest number in decades. Meanwhile, justices with health troubles that pose on-the-job difficulties should be asked to resign, the experts urge.

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (2)]

In this 2007 file photo, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pauses during a speech in Washington. (AP Photo)

Members of the US Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in this 2006 file photo. (AP Photo)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

People who wield an enormous amount of power should not have lifetime appointments. - Eric Posner, University of Chicago professor

It is increasingly difficult to justify absolute independence for justices whose chief work is expressing and imposing on the public laws on topics of their choice. - Letter from legal experts to
Congressional leaders

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

To report an error on this story, notify our editors.

OTHER STORIES ON OUR RADAR

Getty Images

White Grandfather Cuffed for Walking With Black Granddaughter (NewsOne)

Man in Mugshot Explains Why He Has Half a Head (HuffPost)

These Exes Were Spotted Making Out … and That's a Bad Thing (Bleacher Report)

Help! I'm Having an Incestuous Relationship With My Twin (Slate)

Proof that Twitter Users are Sexier Than Facebook Users? (GeekSugar)

Partner Links

A snapshot of the day's best news stories.

View Larger Grid

All Today Yesterday Pick a Date

COMMENTS

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 6 comments

Guest

Feb 23, 2009 10:21 PM CST

The Supreme Court is grand in design and to change even one counterpart would be a crime against our country. Supreme Court Justices were given the powers that they were because the framers thought it necessary to maintain a proper balance of power. Like terrified citizen said, the Supreme Court is one place where age, experience, and wisdom are absolutely vital to justice being achieved.

Guest

Feb 23, 2009 7:49 PM CST

The supreme court of the land is the one place that age, intelligence, experience and understanding is absolutely crucial. The rest of the courts can act like the pleyortha of TV nut courts, but we must have one serious court with which to address corruption and abuses.

Mr.C

Feb 23, 2009 5:13 AM CST

I think letting them choose what cases to take on is a good thing - they can leave power to the lower courts if they want.

What's Popular Now on Facebook

Guy Buys $123 Safe on eBay, Finds Major Cash Inside

Study Finds Arsenic in Baby Formula, Cereal Bars

Washington Post (Source Grid »)

Chief justice cites changing methods in court
New York Times

Current judges have 'narrow background'
Chicago Tribune

Crime & Courts • Politics • US

Congress • professor • overhaul • US Supreme Court • justices • letter

More Newser Stories

Supreme Court's New Go-To Tool: the Dictionary

Justices citing definitions more and more in decisions

(NEWSER) - John Roberts may be the chief justice of the United States, but he recently pulled out a dictionary to learn the meaning of “of” for a ruling. Justices are looking more and more to dictionaries to help them settle cases—a trend that worries both legal experts and dictionary makers, the New York Times reports. “I think that it’s probably wrong, in almost all situations, to use a dictionary in the courtroom,” says an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Among the words looked up: "now," "if," and even "attorney." More»

Supreme Court Steps Into Thorny Case on Jerusalem

Case questions birth country of Jerusalem-born American

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court is about to take on a case that tangles Israeli politics with questions of congressional and executive power. It will hear an appeal from the parents of an American born in Jerusalem—a city the US doesn’t recognize as belonging to Israel—who wants Israel listed as his birthplace on his US passport instead of "Jerusalem," as is currently the policy. State department officials have denied the request of Menachem Zivotofsky’s US-born parents, who moved to Israel in 2000; both the district court and an appeals court ruled that it had no authority to consider the claim. More»

Dems Fight High Court's Campaign Finance Ruling

New law would seek to limit flood of corporate cash

(NEWSER) - Democratic legislators introduced a bill yesterday designed to mitigate the impact of the landmark Supreme Court ruling that gutted decades of campaign finance reform efforts. They’re hoping to get the bill passed ASAP, so corporate money can’t dominate the 2010 election—something that many fear would favor Republicans, the Los Angeles Times reports. But some Republicans have praised the ruling, meaning passing the bill might be tough, and some reform advocates say it won’t do enough. More»

Justices Cite Free Speech in Animal Abuse Videos

They seem ready to strike down law

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court seems likely to back an appellate court ruling that said depictions of animal cruelty are protected as free speech by the First Amendment. In arguments today, the justices considered the case of a man convicted of selling dogfighting videos under a 1999 law that equates videos of animal cruelty with child pornography. Most of the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the law’s definition of banned content is too vague, notes USA Today. More»

House Progressives Call Out Obama on Public Option

Democrats may be headed for intra-party battle

(NEWSER) - House progressives have told President Obama that they “cannot vote for anything less” than health-care legislation with a “robust public option”—all but threatening a showdown if, as seems likely, the White House doesn’t push for a public plan, Talking Points Memo reports. The California lawmakers who head the Congressional Progressive Caucus have asked for a meeting with Obama to discuss the issue “as soon as possible.” More»

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most thought-provoking and entertaining stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Partnering with: Slate

View Newser on the mobile website

Supreme Court Needs Term Limits: Legal Eagles