Term limits IS NOT A FIX1. Nor is an age limit2. A small court (5 or 6) as initially established in the first few years of the USA was with a total US population of around 3 million. To even think a similar size (9) would be sufficient for 333 million (+) is foolish. I would suggest a SC of 45 (or even 603) that Congress establishes as reviewing each case in random panels of 3 then on a split going to a random panel of 9 would work much better. Also all decisions must clearly relate to the case and cite what laws/cases they base their decision on. Yes, they can have boilerplate answers to common blunders but anything new needs a clear response. Also lower courts MUST NOT be "required" to follow precedent when they disagree. Look at viewtopic.php?t=43 and its attachment for one crystal clear example of why that is so.
1 Sure, say 18 year terms allows a nice neat cycle of replacements but there is no guarantee of regular party-of-control switches to make it work ideally either.
2 It is not unusual for intellectual acuity to commence decline before even 60 years of age and occurrences of complete loss of mental acuity before age 70 are widely known.
3 Pick a starting number, the number can be adjusted by Congress as experience shows appropriate. But what we cannot have is SCOTUS simply tossing cases to keep its workload easy--that is not conducive to Justice (the 17th word of the Constitution).
SCOTUS Rethought
Forum rules
Generally, you should be Replying to individual topics from the Board Index list, but not this one though you can if you want to.
Generally, you should be Replying to individual topics from the Board Index list, but not this one though you can if you want to.