The 2012 Presidential Election cycle is in full swing, however, there are many people who believe that the current campaign began the day after President Barack Obama assumed office. To be fair, though, this is not about President Obama because this sort of thing has been going on for as long as I can remember. I am sure we have all seen this phenomena where no sooner is someone elected to office that the business of their reelection becomes a top priority immediately. Well, that just makes it extremely difficult for any elected official to concentrate on the real business at hand - which is the business of the American people!
The U.S. Presidency is, to say the least, an extremely difficult job and as such I don't think that the current 4 year term lends itself to being enough time to do an efficient job. So, wouldn't it make sense then to extend the term of office to a limit of one six year term? That should also solve that pesky dilemma many presidents have had to endure after being reelected to a second term - namely the lame duck presidency. Still, I can see that four year terms just aren't enough time to accomplish much, while eight years (if lucky enough to be reelected) might be just a bit too long.
As for our career politicians residing in the U.S. Congress - YES I would limit their terms too! Unlike the president, though, I could go along with a limit of two four year terms for Representatives and a limit of two six year terms for Senators. Let's face it, many of our lawmakers lose touch with their constituency after too many years in office. And let's consider that perhaps the biggest negative to extremely long careers is the fact that new and fresh ideas are stymied. I believe that government benefits whenever it can get new blood circulating within its institutions because life outside the Beltway moves at a much different pace in respect to everyday life and its changing requirements.
Look, I am sure that when many of our newly elected lawmakers make their way to Washington, there is probably a sense that they will be the ones who will change the culture there because they enter with a better understanding of what is and isn't working when it comes to government policy at the street level. However, far too often once these newbies get settled into their positions they quickly get indoctrinated into the way things get done by a few paranoiac party elders who, let's face it, should probably have been put out to pasture a long time ago. As a result, I believe that many good intentioned people probably have had their idealism sucked right out of them and eventually become disillusioned. Most often though, they capitulate to the business as usual culture and become part of the problem.
Either way, everyone loses!
And speaking of losing - having lifetime appointments for U.S. Supreme Court Justices is just absolutely insane. Granted, their jobs are extremely difficult given the magnitude of most issues coming before them. Decisions are often monumental and far reaching which requires much research. As such, they may require more time than what I would consider fair for the Executive and Legislative Branches. Still, they too must be held to term limits. The thought of aging and infirm justices deciding some of the most important issues of the time is something that must be guarded against. Perhaps a fixed term of, say ten years would be most appropriate, but I could compromise on that so long as it protects us from the infirmaries we all eventually succumb to.
All in all, I believe that term limits would allow those serving the people to either make an impact or allow for reasonable removal after a specified amount of time. The last thing we need are ineffective lawmakers wreaking havoc upon the people longer than necessary. However, I also believe that term limits would actually raise the overall standard of governance and encourage lawmakers to want to succeed. Those who fail would probably not get many opportunities in other public policy making positions.
And that is something that could be good all the way around!
Interesting ideas. However, the one thing that should be considered is the reasoning behind the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices. This is done in an attempt to alleviate any "outside biases" affecting the decisions of the justices. It also helps with what I'm going to call "Constitutional continuity," knowing that the rules our government are consistently determined over time.
I tend to agree with this comment. Although one could argue one way or the other regarding Justice Douglas hanging on at least until Nixon couldn't appoint a successor, there is at least some stability in the law in that, even though Presidents Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama got some appointments, none was able to sweep out one existing side or another. And one could certainly imagine the instability of the law if federal judges were subject to the same election campaigns and moneyraising that state ones are, not that we can get rid of more than a few of the latter on the retention ballot.
Either way Jack, politics is at the heart of all appointments. While I agree with you both in so far as the rationale behind lifetime appointments there needs to be some safeguards from "the one" who might make his appointment something more than interpreting law.
Bias, in of itself, is a human quality that is hard to control?
Somewhat, but in the federal system, district and circuit judges are generally suggested by the state's senators, and all federal judges have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Clarence Thomas sure didn't get a free ride, and I suppose you still remember Haynsworth and Carswell, who didn't get confirmed.
The federal recusal statute also tends to keep the judges under control with respect to bias, although they aren't enforceable against Supreme Court justices except on their own honor.
It sure isn't like the state system of Burke and Barrios slating judges, who rarely are removed in retention elections.
Jack - I do remember. You know all in all it isn't as if I am displeased with the current Supreme Court Justices, well except for maybe the decision of calling a corporation an individual. However, watching Justice Bader suffering through her cancer left me concerned, thus the infirmity thing I brought up. I would think Supreme Court Justices respect their positions, but even in their hallowed institution - you cannot escape the politics. As you rightly pointed-out with the Justice Douglas waiting until Nixon left office - well isn't that a political decision?
Of course it was, but then he didn't hang on long enough to give Jimmy Carter the appointment--Ford appointed Justice Stevens. And Rehnquist died while still in "active service."
There are also the reports that Stevens and O'Connor became more liberal the longer they sat. For instance, while the right wing rails about Roe v. Wade, that actually isn't the current law but what initially recognized the right; most of the current law is based on Planned Parenthood v. Casey and subsequent opinions written by O'Connor. And we still have Kennedy because Bork was Borked, basically for being outspoken in the law reviews.
The bottom line is that even though Clinton, GW Bush and Obama have each had 2 appointments, none of them has changed the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. The only thing that could be said is that the 4 conservatives may be more entrenched, but don't have a majority.
In the federal appellate system, the only two circuits that can be said to be ideologically tinged are the 9th in California one way and the 4th in Virginia the other, both for obvious reasons, but the Supreme Court can reverse them, and after frequent reversals of the 9th, it seems like it got the message.
Jack - great points all. I suppose the justices, regardless of political affiliation, take the responsibility of their position seriously. The Justices are legal scholars (most at least) first so there is, it seems a deeper respect for the law. We have been lucky I suppose, but there will come a time I fear where the balance could be upset and that is when it would become interesting given the opportunity that would present itself. So while we have seen SCOTUS push back the 9th and the 4th - I don't know, I still think as judges get older and older that there might come a time that irrationality might rear its ugly head due to unknown illnesses?
Anything is possible, but in such a case, if the Justice couldn't figure it out oneself, there are the 8 colleagues, as well as the clerks to tell that person maybe he or she should take a time out. The clerks are usually presidents of their law reviews, and most of the judges were once clerks themselves.
In any event, there is also impeachment as a last resort. And it takes 5 votes to come to a decision, and it was reported tonight that they voted 9-0 on what I thought was a very simple question of the First Amendment as applied to churches, so the court can function, and takes seriously the obligation that a matter has to be decided one way or the other.
On the other hand, most people knew that Todd Stroger had certain cognitive deficits on day 1, but it took 4 years to get rid of him.
I suppose then there are enough checks and balances when it comes to the Supreme Court. I guess I can live with the status quo there. Everywhere else no.
Very good point kev. I would think, though, that when a president get the opportunity to make an appointment the hope (at least by them) is that the nominee will indeed have a bias, and some wind up doing just that. I just wonder about the fragility of Constitutional continuity.
Eliminate the citizenship provision and bring in "can do" politicians like Vladimir Putin, King Abdullah or Silvio Berlusconi....okay, so Silvio got more "bunga-bunga" than economic growth, but he was more entertaining than the current crop of U.S.-born politicos.
How about "Ahnold?"
Now that's funny - not.
There are term limits on the presidency. We need them on members of Congress and perhaps an age limit on SCOTUS.
Aquinas - yes wet do have limits on POTUS, however, in the modern era most incumbents are reelected to a second term, but their last two years become pretty much lame-duck. That is why I could go along with one longer continuous term. I think, at least in theory, that they could have the freedom to accomplish more without the burden of having to campaign for reelection immediately upon entering office.
And yes I agree with you, term limits for members of Congress are absolutely necessary! SCOTUS though seems to bring a mixed reaction, although I believe there should be some sort of limit. However, my thoughts on that are primarily to protect the institution against members diminished capacity, i.e. the infirmities of aging?