At the risk of being accused of being a true "lefty", Adler's argument centers on the value of limiting the terms of SC justices in the same fashion that terms of Presidents are limited. Whether the decisions they make or the precedents they establish are "correct" or not is really not the issue. Theoretically the administration of justice ought to be impartial--this court's justices, from Kavanaugh to Thomas to Alito to Gorsuch, have accepted millions of dollars of gifts from people who have cases before the court. Only a fool thinks those gifts aren't designed to buy some level of influence with the court and while it would be simple to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, none of these justices have done so by recusing themselves from those cases. When they then rule along the lines desired by those who ply them with gifts, it would seem that either term limits or a meaningful ethics reform or both are necessary.
First it is disingenuous for David to infer that Roe like the Dredd Scot decision, both terrible decisions, should have enjoyed a forever status and never receive judicial review and eventually be overturned.
Second, Presidential immunity would never be an issue except for the blatant lawfare being directed at Trump by an overtly politized DOJ.
And though the gifts have been properly exposed as being excessive, the lack of attention on advances on book deals exposes a slant by media to direct attention on Thomas but not on Liberal justices.
For many years the Left declared life time appoint was proper and good. That justices were objective and non biased as all the decisions reflected their ideologies.
Amazingly that has now changed, wonder why that is?
Term limits for Congress have been talked about for a long time with no action. Term limits for the Supreme Court have gathered traction in recent years due to originalists serving on the court. If Presidential immunity was not the norm past office holders could be prosecuted long after leaving office. A perfect example would be prosecuting Obama for ordering the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
At the risk of being accused of being a true "lefty", Adler's argument centers on the value of limiting the terms of SC justices in the same fashion that terms of Presidents are limited. Whether the decisions they make or the precedents they establish are "correct" or not is really not the issue. Theoretically the administration of justice ought to be impartial--this court's justices, from Kavanaugh to Thomas to Alito to Gorsuch, have accepted millions of dollars of gifts from people who have cases before the court. Only a fool thinks those gifts aren't designed to buy some level of influence with the court and while it would be simple to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, none of these justices have done so by recusing themselves from those cases. When they then rule along the lines desired by those who ply them with gifts, it would seem that either term limits or a meaningful ethics reform or both are necessary.
Congress has lower ratings than the Supreme Court. Should we change them as well?
Funny. Trump was for term limits and so was thune. but then once they got in office, they changed their mind,
Absolutely!!!
Term limits make sense. I think 12 years makes sense. i do think it takes little time to build expertise.
Let’s start with Congress
Written by a true ‘lefty’- Who get’s to be the arbiter of which decisions/precedents are the correct ones…?
First it is disingenuous for David to infer that Roe like the Dredd Scot decision, both terrible decisions, should have enjoyed a forever status and never receive judicial review and eventually be overturned.
Second, Presidential immunity would never be an issue except for the blatant lawfare being directed at Trump by an overtly politized DOJ.
And though the gifts have been properly exposed as being excessive, the lack of attention on advances on book deals exposes a slant by media to direct attention on Thomas but not on Liberal justices.
For many years the Left declared life time appoint was proper and good. That justices were objective and non biased as all the decisions reflected their ideologies.
Amazingly that has now changed, wonder why that is?
Term limits for Congress have been talked about for a long time with no action. Term limits for the Supreme Court have gathered traction in recent years due to originalists serving on the court. If Presidential immunity was not the norm past office holders could be prosecuted long after leaving office. A perfect example would be prosecuting Obama for ordering the killing of an American citizen without a trial.