American News Update

Are Term Limits Necessary for the Supreme Court?

 Breaking News

Are Term Limits Necessary for the Supreme Court?

Are Term Limits Necessary for the Supreme Court?
September 25
20:09 2018

For the past week, the news has been filled with stories of the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s latest nomination to the US Supreme Court and the accusation made against him for a sexual assault that supposedly took place 36-years ago.

In the midst of all of the turmoil over Kavanaugh and his accuser, some Democrats are once again calling for term limits for Supreme Court justices. However, before they do there are several things that they and others should consider.

First and foremost, everyone who claims that Supreme Court Justices serve for life don’t understand or have never read the US Constitution which states in Article III, Section 1:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [emphasis mine]

Please tell me where it says anything about serving for life or until they retire? No, it says they shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR, which means as long as they rule based upon what the Constitution and federal law says, not what their agenda wants it to say.

When any member of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, starts ruling based upon their personal agendas, they are no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be removed from the bench.

If this part of the Constitution was read more often and put into action, Justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor should all have been removed from the bench.

The second thing that Democrats need to consider is that if they enacted term limits for Supreme Court justices, Ginsberg and Breyer would have been gone years ago. Ginsberg has been the champion of socialist, anti-American agenda since her appointment to the high court in 1993, by then President Bill Clinton. And Breyer is another liberal agenda driven Justice who has been on the bench since 1994, also being appointed by Bill Clinton.

Therefore, term limits would hurt the cause of Democrats as much as it would hurt the cause of Republicans. However, something has to be done to reign in the out of control judiciary. Whether it be changing how they obtain their office, limiting their terms of office, or even limiting their powers, a change has to be made and it needs to be made now.

Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, there have been 27 amendments added to the Constitution. In 1804, the 12th Amendment was ratified which dealt with the manner of choosing a President and Vice-President. In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the way U.S. Senators were elected. The 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933 which reset the terms of the President and Vice-President. And in 1951, the 22nd Amendment limited the number of terms a President could serve.

With these legal precedents already set in place, it is time we all urge our U.S. Representatives and Senators to pass a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment XXVIII) which should read something like this:

  1. Limit the terms of office of all members of the federal judiciary to 3-year terms, not to exceed 3 consecutive terms. Since the current U.S. Supreme Court consists of 9 members, the terms would be staggered so that each year, 3 seats on the Court would be up for appointment.
  2. Limit the powers of the federal judiciary so that it cannot nullify the will of the majority of the people. Based upon the Preamble of the Constitution that opens with We the People, the ultimate power needs to be with the people and not the courts.
  3. Provide for a public review of all federally appointed judges and courts. A single webpage would be created on the Internet that would regularly monitor all federal courts and rulings and the judges involved in those rulings.
  4. Provide for a means to uphold Article, III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that states: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. When a member of the federal courts is not acting in good behavior or for the will of the majority of the people, that said member of the federal court be subject to immediate review by the U.S. House of Representatives. Said review would follow the same rules of impeachment as laid out for other federal offices in the U.S. Constitution.

More important than establishing term limits for Supreme Court justices is no longer allowing any federal judge to push their own political agenda from the bench as so many liberal judges have been doing. What America so desperately needs is judicial reform and start holding every federal judge accountable for his or her decisions and if they are not based on the Constitution and law, then that judge should be removed the bench and replaced with a constitutionalist judge, like Brett Kavanaugh!

Related Articles

3 Comments

  1. Dave
    Dave September 26, 15:39

    Make #4 the highest priority. Make #1 based on good behavior, (or you could end up with “Lame Duck” judges) #2 “Be careful what you wish for” Constitutionality must still be judged, but allow the court to offer suggestion for correction/revision.

    Reply to this comment
  2. James
    James September 26, 16:11

    Term limits should not be put in, but a compliance review board should be. The judges should go through a review every 5 to 6 years to ensure they are not over stepping their authority.

    Reply to this comment
  3. Knight91
    Knight91 September 27, 13:48

    Maybe three two-year terms. Also one man and one woman per congressional district. This would make the D’s and R’s happy and especially the R’s because even the smallest states would have 4 electoral votes. The 435 districts could thus be reduced to 301, each represented by two people.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment