The New Republic

Lifetime appointment is dog whistle for liberal judges. While Chait may know that, of the currently serving federal judges, far more are conservatives, many young, that's not what the base believes. Of course, the base also believe that one liberal judge is one too many and a threat to freedom and the American way. Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if, after the 2012 election, House Republicans go after any remaining liberal judges via impeachment.

- rayward

September 1, 2011 at 11:47am

I would have disagreed with Perry prior to Bush v. Gore -- maybe prior to The Clarence Thomas hearings. I used to think you could transport our legal system to any country and it would purify the worst of tyrants. But now, it's become too ideological and less power on the Supreme Court seems like a dandy idea.

- Nusholtz

September 1, 2011 at 12:07pm

"But it is slightly reassuring to see glimmers of sense in Perry's platform."
It's not that Perry doesn't make sense...he makes perfect sense for someone whose personal beliefs and value system are so drastically different from ours.

- GSpinks

September 1, 2011 at 12:15pm

The proposed reform could be implemented one presidential term removed from the term in which it passes to avoid the problem of the current president giving up the lifetime appointment privilege . Some gymnastics would be required to align the terms of replacements as the lifetime appointees retire, but I'm sure that could be worked out. The alternative would be to revoke the lifetime appointments of current justices and place them immediately on the retirement schedule in some order (random, seniority, etc.)

- ramcat

September 1, 2011 at 12:53pm

Don't tell me I agree with Perry about something. But Bush v Gore and subsequently Citizens United - clearly the appointment of very conservative Supreme Court Justices was intended to skew the system ideologically over a long period of time. This is contrary to what the Founding Fathers had in mind; in fact it's the opposite of the balance they intended. The Court is being used to enforce what is probably a minority point of view.

- Sophia

September 1, 2011 at 12:55pm

The larger point--that Perry has some pursued liberal policies--is true, but court reform is not a good example. Perry has also suggested that he'd like to have judges stand for periodic review--i.e. remove them when they're not toeing the line. Perry's court reforms are not liberal. Regardless, few of Perry's past "liberal" stances will survive as proposals in his national campaign.

- polcereal

September 1, 2011 at 12:56pm

Rick Perry's idea about the Supreme Court is stupid. The founders of the US Constitution were a lot smarter and cosmopolitan than Rick Perry. The Supreme Court justices were given life-time tenure to protect the nation from quick and radical change, which might destabilize the United States. Whether a person is a left-winger or a right-winger, no person should want the government in the hands of politicians of one ideology. This country does not need a government of only Obamas and it does not need a government solely of Rick Perrys. Both ideologies need to be controlled. Divided government is a blessing. History has taught us the unfettered majorities create violence and disrespect for the law. I'll take a "senile" John Roberts or Antonin Scalia over Barack Obama and Rick Perry any day. George W. Bush had control of the government for six years. Look how he governed. Should he have controlled the Supreme Court too?

- john336

September 1, 2011 at 1:48pm

At a time when the state courts are hideously politicized BECAUSE they don't have lifetime appointments (many are directly elected with legal (!) contributions by lawyers who appear before them), Perry and Chait want to politicize the judiciary more by removing lifetime tenure. Imagine the Supreme Court we would have had with 15 year appointments at the end of the 1968 - 1983 cycle, with 9 more years of Republican presidents.

- Lymon1

September 1, 2011 at 2:00pm

john. Your history is wrong. The Founding Fathers gave little thought to the nature of the supreme court. The justices for over a decade were a glorified circuit court-- and often resigned to run for political office, become ambassadors, whatever. It was John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison who masserted a role for the Supremes to rule on the constitutionality of issues-- and Jefferson didn't disagree because he got the vshoirt term result he wanted (no last minute appointment of Fereralist-leaning judges). If Alito et al were true originalists, they's announce they have no power to declare any law unsonstitutional-- much less assert the power to elect presidents. As for Perry's proposal. An 18 year term has much to recommend it, as per Chaits rationales-- probably better than what we have now. Albeit, this problem is a pimple on a knat's keester compared to really non-constitutional issues like the Senate filibuster that BHO should have insister be elinimated on Jan 21, 2009.

- drofnats1

September 1, 2011 at 2:39pm

I think we would be doing well just to get the justices to abide by a code of ethics about recusal. I don't know that mandatory retirement will change much other than to accelerate an already unbearable system. I think the better solution is to revise the nomination process. I recommend that the ranking Judiciary member of the President's party lead a nominating panel to present the President with three names (i.e. advise). In addition, I'd remove the appointment of Chief Justice from the President and make the Justices choose their own leader like most courts do.

- NCblue

September 1, 2011 at 3:56pm

John. I think the politicization of the state courts probably has more to do with the direct election of judges and the resulting influence of money than it does the term limits. The proposal here, AIUI, is to continue presidential appointments with Senate advice and consent, just to limit the terms to short enough and regular enough to ensure smooth changes in views and long enough to prevent undue influence of a single party over a short period.

- ramcat

September 1, 2011 at 4:25pm

Have you completely lost your mind? If it weren't for some "very old judges" in recent years (and throughout the Court's history), we would be even farther up the creek than we are now. These old goats through history have sometimes gone too far, but for the most part they have kept the other branches and especially the executive from leading us into the wilderness. We have an incompetent for a president and a Congress full of malevolent morons, and you think this would be a good time to disable the Supreme Court? Oh, wait, this is a joke, right?

- mlottman

September 1, 2011 at 10:53pm

"If it weren't for some 'very old judges' in recent years (and throughout the Court's history), we would be even farther up the creek than we are now." And I think it's arguable that if it weren't for some very old judges, we'd be a lot better off than we are now. There are a lot of conservative judges who would have had their time limited as well as liberal ones; it's a biased sample just to look at the liberal ones. "We have an incompetent for a president and a Congress full of malevolent morons....?" What's to indicate that this won't be true whenever a Supreme Court Justice retires? So that's not a reason to prefer one appointment system over another. An 18 year term is enough to provide independence from the political branches. The proposal won't make the process any more political than it is now, and may decrease it since there won't be the prospect of some young closet extremist serving for 30+ years. There are some logistical problems--what if someone leaves mid-term, what if we decide we want a number other than nine Justices (there's nothing in the Constitution that requires it)--but it's worth considering.

- dsimon

September 1, 2011 at 11:22pm

While we're on the subject how about term limits for Congresspeople. There are several hundred of those I'd like to see sent to greener pastures, maybe in Libya. Especially in the House.

- Sophia

September 2, 2011 at 1:51am

This isn't very well thought through. If we have trouble confirming judges already because of partisan rancor, why on Earth would we want to increase the number we have to confirm and turn it into a regular occurance? It will only exacerbate the Kabuki and posturing and cripple the highest court of the land with vacant seats.

- tealeaves

September 2, 2011 at 1:14pm

tealeaves: "If we have trouble confirming judges already because of partisan rancor, why on Earth would we want to increase the number we have to confirm and turn it into a regular occurance?" Because having limited terms might tone down the debate. Without the prospect of someone serving for two decades or more, the stakes would be lower and so, perhaps, would the acrimony. That assumption may be wrong, but it's at least an argument. I recall a Linda Greenhouse NYT op-ed in the past year or two that made the same argument. Other countries have limited terms for their high court judges, and they don't seem to have the same battles about it that we do. Whether that's causal or not is debatable.

- dsimon

September 3, 2011 at 12:20am