I’m surprised that many people have been paying attention:
An overwhelming majority of voters would support sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court, as trust and confidence in the institution has eroded in recent years, according to a new survey by the Democratic-aligned firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.
Wide majorities disagree with the recent 5-4 party-line rulings that have upended a century of campaign finance law and tilted the rules in favor of the extremely wealthy and major corporations. The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less.
By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines. John Roberts swore before Congress during his confirmation hearings that he had great respect for precedent. But once confirmed as chief justice, he embarked on a remarkable run of conservative judicial activism that has favored the wealthy while undermining affirmative action and protection for voting rights.
Overall approval of the Supreme Court has been falling since its 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, according to Gallup.
H/t Thomas Soldan.
Who could be against term limiting Supreme Court Justices? Why, the politicians of course. Clearly the public supports the idea. 85% of Americans want the minimum wage raised to $10.10 an hour. Why hasn’t it been raised? Because politicians would rather raise money off a political issue then actually do the people’s business. It’s all about getting reelected. Unless and until we retire every sitting politician, Democrat and Republican, from public office we will continue to get nothing. Except for a fund raising letter. November is on the horizon.
Well as Rethugs are want to say, there’s always our second amendment ‘remedies.’
It’s not that Americans despise judicial activism. It’s that they despise an active con game that rips them off over and over.
There is a reason for lifetime appointments in the first place — if a judge knows his term is up, is there a potential conflict of interest if the judge is thinking about what his next job will be?
I agree that a lifetime appointment has created some problems that didn’t exist for the founders, who never expected so much of the population to live so long, but there may be a better way than term limits. Here are some ideas: first, federal judges should have to have 10 years of experience after licensing as attorneys before being appointed (15 years for appellate court, 20 for Supremes), and then we could impose a mandatory retirement age at 70, which isn’t likely to be much more than 25 years.