its a shame the politicos cant wait for the body to cool

[Riccardo]

Oddly enough it was a liberal

Arthur Schlesinger

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1410728

[IronEagle]

Lifetime is ridiculous. And senators/reps serving until their 80s- 90s is as well. I don't even understand why these geezers like bernie, hillary and trump want to be president at their age. Many companies make CEOs retire at 65 for a reason

I have mixed feelings about age being a limit to holding office. I thought Reagan was a bit of a geezer but he had a successful presidency, even after being shot.

On the other hand it is pretty apparent that by the end of his second term he was pretty much out of it.

He's the only geezer Prez we have had n my lifetime.

But you are right we definitely have some geezers running this year. Problem for me is I dislike most of the younger prospects. Some of the people that dropped out are preferable to those that remain, IMO.

Completely agree with you about lifetime appointments.

[IronEagle]

Arthur Schlesinger

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1410728

Schlesinger may have invented the term but it was the Republicans that used it as a political weapon.

I think this warfare of trying to put ideologues into the court started with Reagan and Bork.

Same sort of thing probably happened earlier than my life but I don't remember anything that happened before I was alive!

I suspect if the "lifetime" nature of the appointment was removed, Presidents would not be incentivized to nominate somebody as extreme as possible. Right now, it's like get the most extreme guy you can get in there because once he is in, he's there for life!

[TRENT]

I Understand IE, right there with ya on this one

noticed I didn't say anything either way about the guy,,just that He grew up 4 blocks away from where My Dads family lived In Chambersburg,,,I will never say Bla bla glad he's dead and all that shit, wish harm on someone else's Family. The guy did not represent My values in any way beside being Italian,,the SC needs a flush,,and this was a good start,,

[TerpEagle]

There is another member of the SC who is probably my second most hated political figure of all time.

Presidents, Senators, Representatives all have to stand for election every few years but these guys do not.

Perhaps we do not want judges to be elected, but I do feel they should be term limited. Or at the very least up for re-confirmation by the Senate after a term.

I can see arguments for both sides of this.

Term limits or some sort of re-assessment means that Justices may feel like they have to rule in such a way that they'll please the electorate.

Perhaps that is positive in that is prevents them from just answering (directly) to special interests but I also see that as a negative.

The Supreme Court should make its decisions on interpretation of the Constitution. Perhaps the justices don't all interpret it in the same way, but they should be free to have their personal interpretation rather than looking over their shoulders to make sure they please the current thinking of the electorate.

I hated Scalia as a Justice and I think that the country is better without him as a member of the SCOTUS. However, unless there was evidence of special interest impropriety I didn't think he should be removed.