We here at USDemocrazy feel this is an accurate representation of the internet telling you about Elena Kagan. Are you listening? Image Courtesy of Serge Ouachée.
If you haven’t heard of Elana Kagan, chances are you will not be able to miss her in the weeks ahead.
Elana Kagan is the new Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice Stevens.
We here at USDemocrazy are being turned around in circles by the mountain of info being churned out about Kagan! If you want to check some of it out, we suggest SCOTUS Blog to help you on your way! They’ve got a comprehensive rundown of who is saying what and where.
And that is all well and good…but…we wanted to talk about something else.
How about TERM LIMITS for Supreme Court Justices? That’s right … how about we drop this lifetime appointment nonsense?…
Jonathan Bernstein at Slate got our noodles cooking with a little piece he wrote on term limits:
I think [Term Limits is] a good topic for debate — my guess would be that over time, the incentive for reform will get stronger as justices serve for longer and longer terms.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior
I think [term limits] would have two advantages over the present system. One is that the current rule puts undue weight on throwing up young appointees…The other is that the current rule generates an awful lot of randomness.
Not that it’s going to happen, but the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens and the focus on the age of President Obama’s pick to replace him have gotten me thinking about term limits for Supreme Court justices…I’m for them.
So all these smart people thinking got us here at USDemocrazy thinking…except we don’t know WHAT we’re actually thinking. So we need your help! Tell us what you think!
Term limits are a nonstarter with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States. Instituting term limits would mitigate judicial independence, and probably start a debate Republicans would love to have about broader public policy implications for such a concept. Of course, instituting term limits on the highest court in the country might also be challenged in the judiciary if not put in place via constitutional amendment.
I’m of two minds on this as well. Lifetime is a mighty long time. But on the point about younger justices, perhaps a younger justice wouldn’t have had the same difficulty understanding the finer points of text messaging that came up in City of Ontario v. Quan earlier this year as Kennedy and Scalia did…
What a good point. It’s always kind of funny when the Court has to look at new tech and you can tell they just don’t quite “get” it.