The present Democratic proposal for the Supreme Court sounds suspiciously like what I proposed many years ago. When I wrote this, there was no political animus or political strategy involved, whereas now the Dems are proposing this “new idea” because, and only because, now and in the foreseeable future, their back is against the wall. Is their present proposal, just plagiarism?
I wrote and posted the following over two years ago:
The Supreme Court; Should It Be Like Roulette?
As it stands now the makeup of the Supreme Court is pure luck, just like roulette. At present, the past three presidents, Barack Obama, George W.Bush, and Bill Clinton, have each nominated two and President Trump is on the verge of nominating his second Justice. This recent equality as far as presidential Supreme Court nominees, however is pure happenstance.
Here we are in the middle of another mudslinging, downright disgusting process of the approval of a Supreme Court Justice. Why is this process so nasty? Why do some senators go out of their way to insult and belittle the nominee? Why do some even go so far as to insult the religious faith of the nominee? Is this just politics as usual? Of course the thinly veiled attacks on the nominee’s reputation do play well with the senator’s base, but is that all that is behind it? No, obviously not, as the nomination and the subsequent vote to accept the nominee has dramatic effects for decades to come because the appointment to Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Other than judges are there any other lifetime positions? If there are please let me know. Other than retiring like Justice Kennedy recently did, the Supreme Court is a lifetime position, and so the political stakes are exceptionally high . . . perhaps too high!
Why does this have to be a lifetime appointment? The answer is that’s what’s in the Constitution. That’s what the designers figured would keep the justices free from political pressures for if they didn’t have to worry about their future, they would more likely be fair and just in their decisions. But that was then and this is now! There is one major difference between the 1770s and 2018. Life expectancy! In the latter part of the 18th century, the average life expectancy was 36 years, and in the early 1800s it rose to 37 years. That is far cry from today’s life expectancy. In 2007, the average life expectancy at birth for persons born in the United States was 77.9 years, an increase of 1.1 years from 2000 and an increase of 0.2 years from 2006, and by 2050 the average life expectancy is predicted to increase to 80 for men, and 83-85 for women.
In 1790 the average age of a Supreme Court Justice at retirement was about 62 years, whereas in 2010 it was about 77 years. Call me crazy, but I doubt that this is what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.
Personally, I think that Kennedy’s decision to retire was the right decision. After all he was 81 years old! Since there is no mandatory retirement age, there have been
justices that did not retire till 90! Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 85 years old – four yearsthan older Kennedy, and five years past the average retirement age.
Personally, if I have a case going before the highest court in the land, I do not want a bunch of octogenarians deciding it, and that is why I am recommending the following “rotating mandatory retirement” for Supreme Court justices. I propose that one year and three years after each presidential election, the justice that has been on the Court the longest would be forced to retire.Since there are nine Supreme Court justices, each would serve as a Supreme Court Justice for an average of 18 years, and I think that is plenty long.
Let’s use Justice Ginsberg as an example. She took her seat on the Supreme Court in August 1993 after a nomination from Bill Clinton, and her present the tenure is three years shorter than the average tenure. With my plan, she would have retired in 2011, and Justice Kennedy who was appointed in 1987 would have retired in 2005.
There are two caveats to this plan. No single president could appoint more than three justices. If a president was elected for two terms (8 years in office), he would appoint only three justices – one at the end of the first and third year of his first term, and one at the end of his third year of his second term. Likewise if a justice died, the president would then have to nominate a new justice, even though it was not on the usual two year-four year cycle, but again each president could only nominate a total of three justices maximum. The bickering about Justice Scalia’s replacement would have been avoided since according to this plan, then President Obama would have already nominated his three justices, and so he would have maxed out.This plan would also avoid picking Supreme Court nominees based on age, as all would serve 18 years. Before his decision, President Trump’s three leading potential nominees were all around 50, and so they could realistically serve for approximately 30 years as a Supreme Court Justice. That’s too long!
7/10/18
With the Dems now in serious long term trouble, of course they are going to want to change the rules. Even though I am chuckling on the inside because of the apparent desperation of the Democrats, I still think my 2018 innovative idea for the Court has some merit. In view of the present day scenario, perhaps it could only be implemented in 2050!
9/26/20
buy atorvastatin 10mg online cheap lipitor 10mg uk lipitor pill
where to buy ciprofloxacin without a prescription – order augmentin 1000mg sale order augmentin 1000mg for sale
buy ciprofloxacin 500mg pill – cheap bactrim augmentin 625mg over the counter
ciprofloxacin tablet – doryx tablet buy erythromycin without prescription
buy flagyl 400mg pills – amoxicillin canada purchase azithromycin online
ivermectin 3 mg for sale – buy sumycin 500mg online cheap order tetracycline 250mg online cheap
order valtrex 1000mg generic – starlix 120mg uk acyclovir cheap
ampicillin antibiotic online cost ampicillin buy amoxicillin online
buy flagyl tablets – zithromax 250mg sale order zithromax 250mg pills
buy furosemide 40mg generic – brand captopril 25 mg captopril canada
metformin 500mg drug – buy cipro generic lincomycin tablet
order generic zidovudine 300mg – generic allopurinol order zyloprim 300mg pills
purchase clozapine without prescription – order pepcid pills famotidine for sale
buy clomipramine 50mg generic – buy duloxetine medication doxepin price
quetiapine 100mg uk – seroquel 100mg pill eskalith order online
buy atarax pill – lexapro brand endep 25mg over the counter
augmentin online – order generic myambutol where to buy cipro without a prescription
amoxil oral – amoxil ca oral ciprofloxacin 1000mg
zithromax 250mg tablet – buy sumycin 500mg sale buy ciprofloxacin 500 mg online
buy clindamycin for sale – order suprax 100mg online cheap chloramphenicol without prescription
ivermectin without a doctor prescription – cheap aczone purchase cefaclor pill
generic ventolin inhalator – phenergan oral theophylline cost
medrol without prescription – order zyrtec 10mg generic astelin cheap
desloratadine 5mg cost – order flixotide nasal sprays albuterol 2mg cost
glyburide drug – glipizide pills generic forxiga 10 mg
glycomet 500mg usa – order precose for sale order acarbose 25mg generic
prandin 1mg uk – order empagliflozin generic empagliflozin 25mg cheap
buy semaglutide without a prescription – glucovance cost cheap DDAVP
order terbinafine 250mg generic – diflucan order griseofulvin medication
cost nizoral 200 mg – lotrisone where to buy buy itraconazole 100mg pills
famciclovir order – generic valcivir 1000mg buy generic valcivir
digoxin order online – buy furosemide pill diuretic buy furosemide 40mg sale
metoprolol 50mg canada – how to buy inderal purchase nifedipine pill
buy generic microzide for sale – lisinopril 2.5mg canada pill bisoprolol
buy nitroglycerin for sale – buy valsartan 80mg online cheap buy valsartan paypal
simvastatin cloak – simvastatin somewhat atorvastatin sir
rosuvastatin online cigarette – pravastatin online cheer caduet buy correct
viagra professional online rack – viagra professional report levitra oral jelly lock
dapoxetine smile – fildena dreadful cialis with dapoxetine colon
cenforce online event – levitra professional online friend brand viagra online severe
brand cialis rich – zhewitra potato penisole coffee
brand cialis detect – apcalis terrify penisole word
cialis soft tabs pills knowledge – viagra super active pills snort viagra oral jelly online protect
cialis soft tabs online cover – viagra super active pills bronze viagra oral jelly fellow
priligy suspect – cialis with dapoxetine smile cialis with dapoxetine advise