This balanced bench thing is a horrible idea. Because if one party gets to have a run where voters trust their candidate to be President for four or five terms in a row, then why should the party that lost those election retain control over any seats?
Straight term limits are a better idea. If each President was guaranteed to be able to appoint a few justices during their 4-year term, it would minimize the impact of additional appointments. (It would also reduce the number of justices who have to be replaced because they die while serving).
If the Presidency continues to ping-pong between the parties every term or two, then the balance would come naturally. But if voters favor one side for a stretch eventually the court would come around to reflect that…
… And the idea that the sitting justices would appoint more is a non-starter too. It would just serve to further enhance partisan control, because the party with partisan advantage would get to appoint more partisans.
On the other hand, why should a party that wins a few elections when seats are open 40 years ago retain any sort of control? I know you said term limits and I agree, but even if the presidency changed hands every single time it’s possible to pack the bench by a) withholding appointments, b) by timing your stepdown, or c) appointing younger, less qualified justices to the bench for the express purpose of serving a long tenure.
I like the idea of term limits and also mandatory financial audits of justices and immediate family that result in felony charges for financial crimes or failures to report.
Applying a set term to Justice’s tenure will greatly reduce the amount of time a justice is in any particular role. Once we have those terms in place, no justice will be sitting there for 40 years without any further discussion of their fitness for office. Even if we allow justices to be re-nominated for more terms, they would at least be subject to another Senate vote.
But your comment about their finances is a whole different matter. Did you know that the SCOTUS justices are not formally bound by any code of ethics? There is a code imposed on lower court justices, and SC justices tend to follow those because they were all lower court justices at one point, but they have no formal accountability to anyone but themselves. Congress has threatened to withhold their funding if they don’t adopt a formal code of ethics, but that hasn’t gone anywhere.
This balanced bench thing is a horrible idea. Because if one party gets to have a run where voters trust their candidate to be President for four or five terms in a row, then why should the party that lost those election retain control over any seats?
Straight term limits are a better idea. If each President was guaranteed to be able to appoint a few justices during their 4-year term, it would minimize the impact of additional appointments. (It would also reduce the number of justices who have to be replaced because they die while serving).
If the Presidency continues to ping-pong between the parties every term or two, then the balance would come naturally. But if voters favor one side for a stretch eventually the court would come around to reflect that…
… And the idea that the sitting justices would appoint more is a non-starter too. It would just serve to further enhance partisan control, because the party with partisan advantage would get to appoint more partisans.
On the other hand, why should a party that wins a few elections when seats are open 40 years ago retain any sort of control? I know you said term limits and I agree, but even if the presidency changed hands every single time it’s possible to pack the bench by a) withholding appointments, b) by timing your stepdown, or c) appointing younger, less qualified justices to the bench for the express purpose of serving a long tenure.
I like the idea of term limits and also mandatory financial audits of justices and immediate family that result in felony charges for financial crimes or failures to report.
Applying a set term to Justice’s tenure will greatly reduce the amount of time a justice is in any particular role. Once we have those terms in place, no justice will be sitting there for 40 years without any further discussion of their fitness for office. Even if we allow justices to be re-nominated for more terms, they would at least be subject to another Senate vote.
But your comment about their finances is a whole different matter. Did you know that the SCOTUS justices are not formally bound by any code of ethics? There is a code imposed on lower court justices, and SC justices tend to follow those because they were all lower court justices at one point, but they have no formal accountability to anyone but themselves. Congress has threatened to withhold their funding if they don’t adopt a formal code of ethics, but that hasn’t gone anywhere.