Most in new poll want to end justices' lifetime appointments

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Nearly two-thirds of all U.S. adults surveyed in a new poll said that they believe that Supreme Court justices should face term limits and leave the court after a certain amount of time on the bench.

The Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted between April 15-16 found that just 22 percent of respondents support lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, while 63 percent support term limits. The remainder had no opinion or were unsure.

While having new faces join the court was important for many Americans, doing it without a vacancy on the court at its current size was not nearly as popular. Just 38 percent said they supported "court-packing," or expanding the size of the Supreme Court and adding more justices to the bench, while 42 percent opposed such an idea. The remaining 20 percent were unsure.

President Biden has pledged to launch a bipartisan committee aimed at looking at potential reforms to the court, including court-packing. Many left-leaning activists support such a proposal due to the successful confirmation of three justices nominated by former President Trump, who they argue will be hostile to liberal causes for decades as a result.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-in-new-poll-want-to-end-justices-lifetime-appointments/ar-BB1fMisY

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. The US Constitution does NOT detail how many Justices there should be.

Hard for Republicans to oppose, but they will.

[madville]

2. I've always supported term limits for all political positions

Maybe 20 years for federal judges and SCOTUS, 12 years for Congress.

[genxlib]

3. I want SC term limits

But with the caveat that they should get lifetime income and be forbidden from working post term. One of the hallmarks of an independent judiciary is that they don't have to worry about where their next paycheck is coming from and I want it to stay that way.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Good Point

Not sure about the "no work" idea, but could easily buy "can't work as a judge again".
But, the idea about lifetime pay seems smart.

[genxlib]

5. You could get around that by just keeping them employed

Continue to pay them but just take them off of the court. Call them Justice Emeritus or something or other.

It would just be too easy for some industry of interest to hire ex-judges at astronomical pay and suddenly become the defacto retirement program that no one wants to piss off.

It has happened in Congress and the Pentagon and would be sure to happen in the Courts.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. I Suppose

But, judges get paid far less than big time lawyers, even as just consultants.
But, as long as their work doesn't directly involve presenting before the court, I can see placing limits on the kind of legal work, but not prohibiting it completely.