In America, that age limit alone would remove Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Roberts. I am a little skeptical that allowing such major turnover will be good though, 9 years is short. Even 12 was short.
In America, that age limit alone would remove Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Roberts. I am a little skeptical that allowing such major turnover will be good though, 9 years is short. Even 12 was short.
USA Supreme court justices are elected for life, and the average tenure is 16 years. Because senior judges are the ones who get the nod for the top court, they don't have decades of good life left...
USA Supreme court justices are elected for life, and the average tenure is 16 years. Because senior judges are the ones who get the nod for the top court, they don't have decades of good life left in them when they get there. Is a 9 year term really that awful?
More recently that average is a lot higher. From this article: To get the average term down to 9 years, there would need to be one new judge appointed per year and that seems like too much...
More recently that average is a lot higher. From this article:
The average term length of U.S. Supreme Court justices is by far the longest among established constitutional democracies. With no limits on tenure, the average Supreme Court term since 1993 has reached 28 years — over twice as long as most peer countries — making the United States a notable global outlier.
To get the average term down to 9 years, there would need to be one new judge appointed per year and that seems like too much turnover. Imagine if Trump were able to appoint 8 judges! Two new judges per 4-year term, resulting in 18-year terms, seems more reasonable, though appointing 4 judges still a lot of power for a two-term president.
It seems like making it a fixed number of appointments per term instead of waiting for people to resign or die would be an improvement.
Yes. It’s not good if a single president can realistically replace the entire bench, which could easily happen in a double term. It’s even worse in Hungary where they are proposing 12 year terms...
Yes. It’s not good if a single president can realistically replace the entire bench, which could easily happen in a double term. It’s even worse in Hungary where they are proposing 12 year terms for the elected officials and 9 year terms for judges.
I am more inclined to something like a 20 year limit, and a cap at 70 which is about a generation and a very rough safeguard against senility and just being totally out of touch with the modern world. Good stability, less dinosaurs. Wtf is with Thomas poisoning the court for 35 years? That limit would also kick Alito and Roberts btw.
Seems like a reasonable change on the surface and such rules are desperately needed in Hungary to prevent corruption in the legislature. The age limit also seems reasonable and maybe even a bit high.
Seems like a reasonable change on the surface and such rules are desperately needed in Hungary to prevent corruption in the legislature. The age limit also seems reasonable and maybe even a bit high.
It continually surprises me (and kind of worries me) how popular ideas like age limits and term limits are. They're tools that can at best address symptoms of broken democracies, and at worst can...
It continually surprises me (and kind of worries me) how popular ideas like age limits and term limits are. They're tools that can at best address symptoms of broken democracies, and at worst can be used anti-democratically to rule out popular candidates arbitrarily. If you think an 18yo doesn't have enough experience to become Prime Minister, or President, or whatever else, then that battle should be fought at the polls and not via the judicial system.
The better approach is addressing the actual causes of these problems:
Moving decisions surrounding elections as far from political reach as possible, and into the hands of independent boards and advisors. Politicians constitutionally shouldn't be allowed to gerrymander or make sweeping changes to how elections are run. Similarly, keeping the judiciary as independent as possible — not political appointments, but appointments by independent bodies.
Getting rid of the effects of money, for example by limiting how much money campaigns have at their disposal. In the US, that would be getting rid of super PACs, and more generally it would mean limiting the amount that can be spent on advertising, campaigning, etc.
Choosing voting systems that create competitive races instead of ones that entrench the winners. Politicians should actively need to justify their existence. And if that means that a single politician keeps on getting elected decades because they're just that popular, then fair enough, they've deserved it. But the system shouldn't let them rest on their laurels, and the incumbency advantage should be minimised wherever possible.
In America, that age limit alone would remove Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Roberts. I am a little skeptical that allowing such major turnover will be good though, 9 years is short. Even 12 was short.
USA Supreme court justices are elected for life, and the average tenure is 16 years. Because senior judges are the ones who get the nod for the top court, they don't have decades of good life left in them when they get there. Is a 9 year term really that awful?
More recently that average is a lot higher. From this article:
To get the average term down to 9 years, there would need to be one new judge appointed per year and that seems like too much turnover. Imagine if Trump were able to appoint 8 judges! Two new judges per 4-year term, resulting in 18-year terms, seems more reasonable, though appointing 4 judges still a lot of power for a two-term president.
It seems like making it a fixed number of appointments per term instead of waiting for people to resign or die would be an improvement.
Yes. It’s not good if a single president can realistically replace the entire bench, which could easily happen in a double term. It’s even worse in Hungary where they are proposing 12 year terms for the elected officials and 9 year terms for judges.
I am more inclined to something like a 20 year limit, and a cap at 70 which is about a generation and a very rough safeguard against senility and just being totally out of touch with the modern world. Good stability, less dinosaurs. Wtf is with Thomas poisoning the court for 35 years? That limit would also kick Alito and Roberts btw.
Seems like a reasonable change on the surface and such rules are desperately needed in Hungary to prevent corruption in the legislature. The age limit also seems reasonable and maybe even a bit high.
It continually surprises me (and kind of worries me) how popular ideas like age limits and term limits are. They're tools that can at best address symptoms of broken democracies, and at worst can be used anti-democratically to rule out popular candidates arbitrarily. If you think an 18yo doesn't have enough experience to become Prime Minister, or President, or whatever else, then that battle should be fought at the polls and not via the judicial system.
The better approach is addressing the actual causes of these problems: