Comments on: Rehnquist Was A Junky

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:10:32 +0000

People, the term limits would obviously be staggered because nobody would replace all the judges at once. It’s no different than the partisan roulette we’re currently playing when one judge either decides to quit or die. But at that point, it’s not up to them to wait it out until a conservative or liberal is in office. All this will do is politicize presidential campaigns further because people will know that judges are going to be stepping down. That’s it.

And again, Rhenquist was a JUNKY. Just because it wasn’t crack or coke doesn’t mean it didn’t mess with his head. And term limits would have least knocked him out of there after his decade long binge, instead of the additional 20 years he stayed on the bench. I mean, I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for in terms of practices and standards for the highest court in the land, but not taking triple the suggested amount of painkillers for over a decade would rank up there for me.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:44:48 +0000

I agree with Dos, term limits are a bad idea for SCOTUS. It is extremely valuable to have judges appointed by administrations very different from the current one. Certainly liberals can see the benefit of not having all of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by the current president, and I’m sure conservatives can see that benifit to. So even if you did have term limits, they would have to be in excess of 8 years, probably atleast 16 or 20 years, which means that term limits would have done nothing to limit the impact of this decade long addiction.

By: sleipner

sleipner — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:32:49 +0000

Is there an impeachment process for Supreme Court justices? I was under the impression there was none…

By: The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » Center of Attention

The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » Center of Attention — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:28:18 +0000

[...] Justin Gardner at Donklephant: Rehnquist was a junky? [...]

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:10:44 +0000

Term limits will politicize the function of judges. The nomination and appointment process are politicized enough. Do you really want your constitutional rights being determined by a judge who is having to weigh his political fortune on the public opinion of his/her decision. I think not. Can anyone point to a Rehniquist decision that they believe was influenced by his alleged addiction to painkillers? Can anyone point to a moment in time during the Rehnquist tenure as Chief Justice that the administration of SCOTUS was compromised do to this alleged addiction? Furthermore, term limits for Judges (particularly SCOTUS) would reek havoc with the continuity of precedent. In short, a totally bad idea and I fail to see the logic: “They aren’t gods, so we should have term limits.” You are correct, they aren’t gods and they can be impeached and removed from office. Perhaps this would have happened with Rehniquist if his addiction were made public, but I doubt it, because his opinions and administration of SCOTUS were almost universally respected even by those that disagreed with him.

By: Kyle Cooper

Kyle Cooper — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:23:23 +0000

Very good article. You are so right on term limits. I am an attorney and I can tell you Federal Judges have a lot of power. Back when people lived a lot less time it was still a powerful position. Now they are treated like Kings and Queens.