Manchin, Welch push for Supreme Court term limits with proposed constitutional amendments

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: WV News

11 hrs ago


WASHINGTON — Senators Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) have introduced a joint resolution seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to establish 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices. The proposal aims to restore public confidence in the Court and curb political tensions surrounding the nomination process.

“I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land,” Manchin said. “Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system.”

Welch echoed the call for reform, emphasizing its importance. “Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary,” he said. “Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans. I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”

Under the proposed amendment, new justices would serve single, nonrenewable 18-year terms, with a new term beginning every two years. This structure would ensure each president has the opportunity to nominate a justice during their term. Existing justices would not be affected by the term limits but would be phased out through a transition period.

Read more: https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/manchin-welch-push-for-supreme-court-term-limits-with-proposed-constitutional-amendments/article_cd86bfdc-b680-11ef-98f7-339cd6b88037.html

[Hugin]

1. In before all of the...

Doomheads alight.

Yes, it’s unlikely, but at least those who are in a position to actually make something happen are talking about it.

This seems to be a decent framework. Also, it could be a mechanism for expanding the court over time.

[thesquanderer]

18. re: "Also, it could be a mechanism for expanding the court over time."

From the OP: “Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices"

[Hugin]

19. It's obviously a work in progress.

I'm assuming there would be turns worked out in the democratic process.

[LiberalFighter]

20. SCJ should not be limited to just 9. IMO it should be 13 right now.

It should be based on number of circuit courts.

[LeftInTX]

2. It's December 10th...They know darn well this isn't gonna go anywhere...Should have proposed this in 2021.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. The one thing about it though

is that there is actually a markup of legislation that can be used as a base framework, and then an updated/revised version can be re-introduced in a later Congressional session if/when moving it is more favorable.

[Polybius]

9. More like 1971

It wouldn't pass in 2021 either, since it's a Constitutional Amendment. Getting 67 votes in the Senate is a big task.

[Rebl2]

29. Why didn't

Manchin suggest this before now. He is one foot out the door.

[C0RI0LANUS]

4. Below is one response to the proposal to limit SCOTUS terms.

[Raven123]

5. I can't help but wonder what is motivating Manchin, though I wouldn't speculate

[C0RI0LANUS]

6. Perhaps Joe Manchin is trying to recover his tattered reputation for the sake of history. Just a guess.

[Dan]

13. Becsuse once you open up the Constitution

For editing, you can do all kinds of sneaky shit - like removing term limits on a president.

[Escurumbele]

7. 18 years is still too much! Why 18 years? Make it four like anyone else...so much damage can be done in 18 years

All they are going to do is hurry doing their evil...Anyway, most of them won't last 18 years.

It really is stupid to allow these crooks to stay on the bench for that long.

At the end of the day, their long stay on the court doesn't give them any advantage, they still have to research the cases, find precedence, like any other case a good lawyer would be engaged in. Don't tell me that to make a horrible decision like the overturning of Roe vs Wade they needed 16 years of experience on the bench when we all know they were going to gut it anyway, and it only took, how many years on the bench to do it? Was it two? even though they said they would not during their confirmation.

Stupid change the 18 years, make it four because as we will see with the new administration, four years is plenty of time to destroy everything in their path. Takes years to build, days to destroy, so the 18 years does neither protect, nor does it give them any advantage.

It took 14 years to build the Twin Towers and only two days to bring them down, it takes years to build something good, a day to destroy it.

[eppur_se_muova]

12. It's generally thought best to avoid having all three branches of gov't "turn over" at the same time.

That's part of the reason Reps, Senators, and the POTUS all have different term lengths. Since both POTUS and Reps are up for re-election every four years, this leads to some discontinuity and uncertainty in itself. Adding a court turnover on top of that would be chaos, and could render gov't ineffective at crucial times.

Most suggested term lengths for SCOTUS avoid such predictable, coincident turnovers. Perhaps the best choice would be term lengths where the no. of years is 'co-prime' to as many other term lengths as possible -- i.e. they do not have common divisors, so that a coincidence of end-of-terms would happen as seldom as possible. Hence terms of seven and nine years have both been suggested, as have ten year terms, which would coincide more often, since that would be another even number.

Of course, there is the possibility of staggering terms, as is done with the Senate (one-third up for election every two years, never all at once), or of limiting appointments to, say, odd years only (would need other adjustments to make that work).

Personally, I favor longer, say nine-year, terms, since longer terms means less politicking by, or in favor of, the candidates. Notice I say terms, not term limits -- personally, I think reappointments should be possible, to retain experienced judges with proven track records. POTUS and advisors will have to make a choice between keeping judges they like, and setting up a potential opportunity for their successor(s) as the re-appointed judge, necessarily older, is more likely to die in office or resign due to health. Uglicans like to appoint ridiculously young, inexperienced but dogmatically agreeable judges in the hope they will stay a very long time. If they are unlikely to be reappointed, particularly when more experienced candidates are available, that strategy loses its power.

I have my own reasons for limiting SCOTUS terms, which I haven't seen discussed much elsewhere. Might post those at some other time, realizing that it's probably just another fart in a perpetual windstorm, and won't likely affect anyone's thinking.

PS: If judges with many productive years still left in them are forced to step down from the SCOTUS, where will they go ? Will they simply become an unused resource ? Or (more likely) will they be returned to lower courts, which will have to adjust to a new dynamic in which judges promoted up the ladder may well come back down, and expect deference to their seniority ? Will this simply shift the battleground, with radical, revisionist judges who legislate from the bench -- as conservatives purport to despise, but actually cherish -- trying to serve as gatekeepers for appeals to the SCOTUS ? Or will they be pastured out to "think" tanks, to influence the judiciary more indirectly, and, all too often, deviously ?

Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Read the Constitution about congressional terms.

[eppur_se_muova]

24. Condescend much ?

Article I, Section 2, Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 2:

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

Two years, six years, one/third of Senate at a time. I mentioned every bit of that.

[LiberalFighter]

28. You stated... "Since both POTUS and Reps are up for re-election every four years,"

Which is not true. And why I stated to read the Constitution.

[Escurumbele]

22. OK, give them five (5) years then. I believe 18 is too much. There we have Thomas, 33 years on the bench

He has never done anything worthwhile talking about, has caused more damage than good.

I believe five years is more than enough...if they go to lower courts? Fine, anywhere else but the post the hold today that holds too much power, to an extent that he, his wife, Alito, have been able to abuse it.

Too much power on the Supreme Court.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. Go for it, Sisyphus

[bucolic_frolic]

10. It's the main cog in the grinding wheels of SCOTUS time

Other elements could be added, but, over time, this would solve a lot. A lot.

Of course, getting to actually pass the hurdles to make it an approved Amendment, is like ice cubes in a coal fire. But even the visibility makes this a laudable move.

Was 18 years Joe Biden's proposal, or is it just out there in the ether?

Amended: And it is good to see Sens. Manchin and Welch, who can't be exactly ideological bedfellows, making an effort to seriously improve something.

[Martin68]

11. Not gonna happen as long as there is a conservative majority on the court and a conservative majority win either house

of Congress.

[DetlefK]

14. And what if saboteurs simply refuse to allow confirmation-hearings?

Like Mitch McConnell did?

[kimmylavin]

25. An idea I liked...

I heard someone suggest that the advise & consent duties of the Senate should have a time limit.

So a President would nominate someone, and then if after, say, 21 days, the Senate has refused to do anything about it, consent will be assumed.

[RustyWheels]

15. Make it 13 years...

And expand the court to 13.

There. Fixed for you Senator Manchin.

[GoreWon2000]

16. My SCOTUS confidence died forever in 2000

when the repug, Rehnquist 5 acted like highly partisan politicians who in a judicial coup d'état, threw out the votes of millions of Americans by stopping the legal Florida 2000 vote count in order to install their personally preferred candidate in the White House. They killed American democracy in one fell swoop of a power grab and our country will never be the same because of it.

[karin_sj]

17. Too long

They can do a lot of damage in 18 years.

[alarimer]

23. This should not pass while Trump is in office.

The timing is suspect.

[cstanleytech]

26. Make it 12 with all being replaced together with new judges that are drawn randomly from the current Federal judges

if a federal judge declines then a new one is randomly selected and the declining judge is removed from being a judge and can never serve as a federal judge again and even if they try resigning before declining to serve on scotus they can still never be a federal judge again.
If a judge dies or steps down then a new one is drawn randomly to complete the term and no judge that's ever served on SCOTUS can serve as a federal judge ever again.

[Buzz cook]

27. "Existing justices would not be affected by the term limits"

So insuring a conservative majority forever.
I don't mind the idea of term limits, it's just not going to happen. Certainly the way Manchin has it is not fair or balanced.

One thing a congress can do is change the status of supreme court clerks. Currently they are picked from Federalist Society hacks for conservative justices. Moderate justices usually opt for recommendations from various law schools and professors.
Congress can end this by making supreme court clerks civil servants.
Currently court clerks tend to be partisan, they help radicalize the justices they serve, and frequently write the decisions of the justices they serve. They become an echo chamber for the justices they serve.

Making the clerks civil servants reduces the partisan nature of the position. It provides continuity in the court as clerks would not cycle through the system as their justices retire, but would continue on as clerks. Clerks would be assigned to each justice rather than the justice picking themselves, reducing the chance of a justice creating an echo chamber.

So when we get the majority and presidency back, this should be in the legislative cue.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. Manchin attended Army-Navy game as trump's guest

Link to tweet