Public sentiment is largely negative regarding judges accepting government roles after retirement. Many express concerns about potential compromises to judicial independence and the influence of political powers on judiciary decisions. Suggestions for reforms, like a mandatory cooling-off period before judges can transition to political roles, are common. There is also discussion about financial incentives and opportunities for judges post-retirement, with the public urging for more transparency and accountability within the judiciary. Overall, skepticism and distrust towards the judiciary's independence and pressures for changes to secure its impartiality are evident.

Judiciary

Government

Political Parties

Post is flaired QUESTION. Stick to the question 

Please report bad faith commenters 

I treat Sunday like Schrödinger’s productivity.. both productive and useless until I open the fridge.

VAWNavyVet

I think the 18-20 year limit is a good one. I also think there should be an upper age limit at say 70-75 for all governmental positions. I know the military has some of these age limits for its upper echelon positions. 

I don’t think the senate should ever be able to stonewall a candidate like they did Merrick. I think there should be a rule/law that says that the nomination must be voted on within 1 month of the nomination. None of this McConnell shit saying it’s too close to an election bla bla bla.

vibes86

All government officials should have term limits. Sadly congress would have to make laws for this and they are the ones benefiting the most from no term limits since they are so old.

InspectorMoney1306

The founding fathers has reasons to make them lifetime so I agree with them (it is about them not having to campaign and just focus on that the Constitution says). 


As something else said in the thread though, all public servants should have to take a cognitive test or something when they hit a certain age every year to maintain their position.

scuba13

I don't think term limits are the answer. I think. it's checks and balances.


Anti corruption and transparency. It should be much easier to remove a justice and their finances and conflicts of interest should be much more scrutinized.

burrito_napkin

Never going to happen. That’s just the reality.

Glockman19

It's so cute that these guys have this whole plan worked out... as if having a sufficiently detailed plan for court succession is the only thing in the way of getting rid of all these naughty conservative judges.  They're living in a pure fantasy and the mods that approved this question while rejecting some other important topics are obviously also right there with them.

BabyBeSimpleKind

Popular idea among leftist because they're butthurt of the current SC.

The current SC goes against Trump too. 

You want to fix this nation? Term limits for congress will be much more fruitful. The problem is they wouls have to vote themselves out of a job.

Personally, I think they should be limited to 20 years.

WingKartDad

My idea is to have SCOTUS locked at 11, and any issue requires a 7 person majority to be settled in the court. If that cannot be achieved, the issue is passed on to the general public, as it is clear that the issue is too split to be counted as a matter of legal opinion. The law should be clearcut, not a matter of interpretation. Voters choose which judge’s ruling is the most sound.

Most senior member leaves every two years. The president appoints one a year into his term, and then congress appoints one a year after the midterms. The senate appoints any emergency replacements, and none of them can veto the others’ picks.

Clickclacktheblueguy

I think I read about this solution in Ezra Klein’s book “Why We’re Polarized” and I really liked it:


- Limiting Justices to 18-year terms
- Balancing the Court so there are 15 Justices: five appointed by Democrats, five appointed by Republicans, and five unanimously agreed upon by the 10 selected by parties

zfowle

Well first of all the term limit would have to be an odd number not divisible by 4 for obvious reasons It'd have to be 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 23 something like that. 

Second you pretty much have to grandfather existing justices in, removing them just wouldn't go over well, though hopefully they'd be more eager to resign than Ruth was. 

That's really about it.

FuturelessSociety

Only way for me to support SCOTUS term limits is if they are elected by the people. If the president is going to nominate them, then they should serve for life.

et_hornet

I would solve it by first electing senators who put the well-being of the country above politics.

Overturning the 17th Amendment would restore their accountability to the State governments. 

Then the Senate will be directed to ONLY confirm strict Constitutionalists

Instead of Liberal activists, that "don't know what a woman is."

me_too_999

I oppose term limits for Supreme Court Justices. I think the current system allows Justices to not feel beholden to whichever party or President nominated them to the Court, and allows them to not have to worry about a post SCOTUS career, which could again lead them to be more likely to favor a particular party or even litigant in a specific case. The lifetime appointments makes it easier for them to vote their conscience on specific issues, regardless of the platform of their party or benefactors.

There are many real examples of this. Most notable, Earl Warren led what most scholars agree was the most progressive Supreme Court in US history, but he was a Republican who had been governor of California and had, before being nominated to the Court, aspirations to be President. More recently, David Souter was nominated to the Court by George H.W. Bush and was, himself, a Republican. And yet, he ended up siding pretty consistently with the liberal wing of the Court. Even on the current Court, most of the Justices occasionally go against the positions of their parties/ideologies. Gorsuch, Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh have all sometimes sided with the liberal wing. All three liberal Justices have likewise taken the conservative position on specific cases. I think removing the lifetime appointment would increase the likelihood that most Justices would just stick with the party line for their respective ideologies. Only Alito and Thomas, on the current Court, seem married to their ideology. Without lifetime appointments, I'm afraid that would become the norm.

danimagoo

They should just be times so that each election cycle there is 2 to be appointed.

Every 4 years 2 are replaced, that’s a max term of 16-20 years depending when you fall as the 9th in the cycle.

Seems pretty reasonable.

The first one is done inside your first 100 days when you are fresh in with a mandate, the second after mid terms when people have had a say on how you are actually doing

Melvin_2323

Here in Australia all Judges, no matter the court, must retire on their 70th birthday. That's it. That's the system. 

If the judge wants to keep working, they will get non judicial work such as being appointed to a tribunal or commissioner work.

SirFlibble

I personally think the Supreme Court should be abolished.  It's the powdered wig of our judicial system. Since I can remember, it's been a cudgel to beat us over the head with undesirable and arcane conservative edicts. 

I feel a lottery system should be created where real, qualified judges would be anonymously impaneled for every issue. They would remain anonymous for a certain time period after the ruling. Judges would have to have a history of sound rulings for a pre-determined amount of time before they would be able to apply to sit for those panels.

artful_todger_502

Oppose, because this is politicizing the court. Theorhetically, this would mean a 2 term president would be able to replace 4 justices in his tenure. What there needs to be is an ethics reform for SCOTUS. This could be combined with a new amendment reprioritizing the role of POTUS as well.

smash-ter

I don't like it because it may bunch up appointment opportunities.  I could see partisan benefit in delay confirmation hearings or naming a replacement to set up a two-at-a-time opportunity intentionally rather than by letting in happen through natural attrition.

How about minimum and maximum age limits instead.  Require they be at least as old or maybe a few years older than the minimum age for the President, Inhave more of a problem setting a maximum age of we don't do the same for elected positions as well.

whatdoiknow75

Many countries have retirement age. Like 65, 62, 70

sumit24021990

\~20ish year terms seems fine, but I don't think that's the issue. When you have a hyper polarized country and a dysfunctional legislature you end up with partisan appointments and 51/49 votes in the senate. 

Right now everyone is drooling at the idea of a scotus justice dying during their guy's term so they get their partisan on the bench.

In that world it's like a monkey with a machine gun, you can try to mitigate the damage but it's not really going to make it "good".

BallsOutKrunked

&gt;What happens if a justice dies in office during their term? Is their replacement immediately appointed to simply fill out the term? If it resets the 18 year term, does this ripple out to other terms?

According to the original premise of this 18 year term (I saw it somewhere else also) the judges that are "rotated out" are still there and still have a lifetime appointment. They are just not one of the active 9. If one of the active 9 dies or has to recuse themselves for some reason one of the older judges is picked randomly to temporarily fill the vacancy until the next appointment.

I like the idea as I read it previously. Not sure where to find it now.

LowNoise9831

Every two years the president gets to appoint a new Justice, and the most senior justice retires. If a Justice dies, their seat remains vacant until the end of the two year gap between appointments, and rather than the senior justice retiring, the new Justice who is added fills the empty seat. Basically, the president will always get to fill a seat every two years. If more than one justice dies within two years, then both seats can be filled.

Stillwater215

My beef is that the Courts aren't supposed to be "representative" or otherwise beholden to the people. Our system is not and was not meant to be an Athenian democracy. The house of Representatives was supposed to be the that. And knowing how dangerous the voice of the people alone could be in the face of demogogues and idilogues, the senate, the electoral collage, and the Judical branch were set up as checks against that. In the case of the judiciary "mob rule" was especially feared as history is replete with examples of the will of the many running counter to justice. So I oppose passionately on that point.

Political gamesmenship isn't going anywhere, this change would just increase frequency as there would be more appointments made more often.

We need the legislature to take its powers back from the executive and it's agency's, it would lessen the feeling of frustration in regards to both the president and the courts if people's voting for representatives actually mattered as much as it was supposed to. The imbalance is the underlying cause in my opinion.

Revolutionary-Mud446

Oppose:




1. The right currently controls the court and I want to keep the status quo because I view leftist judges as dangerous due to how they view the constitution as a "living breathing document" open to ludicrous interpretations as long as the interpretations are "for the greater good" (personally I'm extremely textualist and despise doctrinal judges)




2. If you think judges are political now they will get even more political with term limits. Hell we can thank the Democrats for how politically they currently are due to Harry Reid starting the nuclear options game 

Grumblepugs2000

I think it should be every 6 years they get re-confirmed by the Senate, not 18. If they’re not re-confirmed then the President gets to nominate and go through the process.

jpepackman

I’m confused about this phrase “the court should reflect the gradual changes in society.”

What does this mean?

2LostFlamingos

SCOTUS term limits is another example of people avoiding responsibility in a democracy. The entire point of a life appointment of a supreme court justice is that foundational principles of the law would be slow to change and would therefore be more stable and consistent overtime. Setting expectation dates on justices means you can plan for their removal. You don't like the justices? Well then you should plan to win elections again and again until you can run them out. Thomas is on the clock as is about half of the bench. But really you should plan to win elections. Instead we have an class of pissy liberals who are too good to vote, and an other entire class of pissy old people who are too good to hand over power. And freaking no one is standing up to challenge seats in red districts

oldcretan

I think a lot of folks calling for term limits on the supreme court are just mad that the court didn't rule the way they wanted. When the court is liberal leaning its conservatives complaining about "activist judges", now that it is conservative leaning it's liberals complaining, and now that some of those judges are pushing against Trump they're getting called "woke" or "traitors" now. I agree more with the liberal criticisms, of course, but I think focusing on term limits for supreme court justices is kind of a miss. 

I think having them appointed for life or until they step down is fine. The real issue is things like political corruption (such as the alleged quid pro quo involving Thomas) or the means by which some were pushed through to be appointed (the whole Mitch McConnell thing, when there was a previous hypocritical push to "wait until after the election" and then when the tables were turned it was "push them through now before the election"). That's the real issue. People just talk less about it because there's nothing we can do. With supreme court term limits there is still not much we can do, but it feels more feasible to limit the terms of corrupt politicians than to actually combat political corruption. Modern politics is very much about feeling you are doing something, even when you aren't (post a hashtag, go to a protest, buy the MAGA hat, own somebody online, post a meme that triggers the libs, doomscroll, and "raise awareness". You're really doing something! \s). 

The truth is, the system is ubiquitously corrupt and the system requires people to act outside of its rules in a direct and "improper" way in order to fix that. Until people are willing to do that (and put their personal comfort and lives on the line) we'll just be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound or engaging in behaviors that feel like we're doing something even though they never actually fix the core issue. Incremental change is good, it's better than nothing, but at this point incremental changes have just become smaller and smaller and less and less meaningful. Advocating for term limits for our corrupt political class, but keeping the corrupt political class is one such measure. We have laws against political corruption, we just don't enforce them or let people off with a slap on the wrist based on a technicality. 

There was a notion that giving the justices the job for life would sort of separate them from politics and encourage impartiality (because they wouldn't have to run for office, campaign, or align with a party). I think that's a good idea at its core. The issue is that when people aren't motivated by getting re-elected (when you take that away) it just means that those who want to sway the court have to find another avenue (quid pro quo, handling appointments hypocritically, etc). The idea was that law would keep that corruption down, that anything attempting to sway the court would be treated harshly and that corrupt judges would find themselves facing bribery charges and removed from their position. That doesn't happen, but it is what needs to happen. If we cracked down on corruption, then there would really be no issue with justices serving for life and it would actually be a benefit by encouraging impartiality.

AltiraAltishta

I think it should be a rule where one active justice will be replaced per presidential 4-year term. The justices that survive the longest will be the ones more centrist or ideologically neutral, while extremist judges will be short-lived. If a single justice dies or retires during  presidential term, that will count as the one replacement. If two die or retire in a single four-year term. then the President will be allowed to replace both, with only one counting against the replacement pick for that term. A two-term President could then pick two justices at most. An aged judge, even if politically aligned, would likely get replaced by a younger justice. There would be no term limit for justices, but the average lifetime as a justice would about 30 years.

Odd_Bodkin

I don't have a major problem with it, but I don't see it as having much effect on the current issues with SCOTUS. I could even see an argument that it makes it worse - if SCOTUS picks are short-lived, political parties may have an even greater incentive to choose overtly political justices who will try to drive more radical change in their limited time in the position.

I think more needs to be done to make SCOTUS apolitical (as much as it can be, anyway). But it's hard to come up with solutions to that that don't begin with "fix the party system," because that's the root of most issues.

Jorycle

A simple proposal is that every two years the president gets to appoint a justice to an 18-year term. If he/she wants to reappoint someone who already served, that's fine. If a justice fails to complete his/her term (e.g. resigns or dies), the president appoints someone to complete that justice's term.

GregHullender

Absolutely awful idea. The criticisms come from whiny left wing law professors, the same people who wrote billions of articles criticizing presidential self/family pardons during the Trump administration and then silently ate shit while Biden broke a repeated promise and pardoned his fuckup son and other random family members.

MininimusMaximus

This only became an issue when the conservative justices gained a 6-3 majority. Why was it not an issue previously? The court has been consistent and enforced the constitution, with both democratic and republican presidents.

Obidad_0110

🇨🇦. SCC retirement age is 75. New problem - vigorous retired justices getting directorships and even returning to practice. Imagine being a young prosecutor when a giant of the Court shows up for the defence.

Ok-Search4274

Wasn’t MCConnell just following the Dems lead? If I recall correctly the “stonewalling” was set up and justified by the Dems by either Reid or Biden I think. 
It does make sense because the people did speak and they didn’t want another partisan Dem on SCOTUS.  I think “the law is what I justify it to be at the moment”  leads to the crappy disruption we have today.  Social justice doesn’t work. Justice works-  with no qualifiers. 

Given the proclivity for the left to abuse and then  rationalize their abuse of government, I can’t see a rationale for term limits. They are there for life in order to prevent the abuse  of power. The fact that the left is having a collective fit that they can’t manipulate written law today is exactly why we need these justices not influenced by time any more than they are now. 

I would suggest the left separate itself from the 20 percent positions they hold on numerous 80-20 issues.  
They may have to disavow their fringe elements but that would put them more in line with the majority and common sense for that matter. 
Is antisemitism so precious to the left they can’t disavow it instead of changing the subject? Why don’t they support women’s right anymore?  Do they really need to sexualize children in school? It is insane.

Plenty-Ad7628

Life appointments are widely criticized pretty much only by people who think the Constitution is a "living" document in the sense that the interpretation of it should change in time, with the times. 

The argument against it is that the text means what is written, and someone who can correctly discern the text, doesn't age out of that

Learned_Barbarian

I will agree to any term limit that you want, as long as it applies to both houses of congress. What do you think would happen if either house had a chance to vote on it?

AtoZagain

Term limits are a bad idea, it makes that branch of government even more political than it already is and it would create instability that would be costly. 

Imagine abortion for instance being legal, then illegal, then legal again. Then illegal all based on who wins the election. Now apply that to every law that is considered partisan.

intothewoods76

The theoretical problem I have with term limits is the possibility of retirements, deaths, and term lengths resulting in a 100% turn over in a single year or two and the court being non-functional during the nomination and confirmation process.  100% is unlikely, but it even fewer near-simultaneous replacements would throw th current session into turmoil as justices who were active in the hearings and drafting of opinions are no longer on the court and the replacements either are in a conflict because they made the rulings being reviewed, or didn't participate in the arguments.

I read somewhere that the idea was to rotate the judges every 5-10 years with different federal judges. You also knly get one term in a lifetime. I don't know if or how it would work, but it seemed like an i teresting idea.

TheDuck23

I’d rather see more justices and accountability.  There should be consequences for ethics violations we do that by having more justices such that it stops being an ideology battle.

Judges are supposed to be neutral and impartial, not implementing their personal policy from the bench.

ericbythebay

My issue is less about term limits and more about parties. I'm not sure the exact solution, but at its core I feel judges should be split evenly between the two parties.

AleroRatking

Have judges at the next level down get called up randomly for Scotus duty for a year, like jury service for judges.

xoexohexox

20 year limit for all elected and appointed officials. Mandatory retirement at 70. No pensions, no free medical, live like the rest of us.

OhioResidentForLife

Term limits similar to OP's suggestion.

No one works beyond age XX.  Some have said 76.  Certainly no older than 80yo.

Continue with our 9 Justices, and rotate randomly 4 Circuit Court Judges for each case. (There are 12 District CCJ; a 13th specializes in patent law in DC, but would not be included in this scenario).

9 SCJ + 4 random CCJ = 13 Justices.

Randomization will make the cases less slam-dunk for political agendas.

A larger group of judges limits the crazy on the edges.*

If a SCJ is forced to step down early, SCOTUS will then be manned by 8SCJ and 5CCJ until the next aceduled appointment.

*Imagine going out to dinner with friends.  If only 4 are going out, you can find some crazy hole-in-the-wall restaurant food that is crazy and unique and tasty.  

Now imagine making dinner plans for your office.  You need a place that seats 25+ at once; has vegan, glutin-free, paleo, and allergy-friendly choices; and fits everyone's budget.  You get Olive Garden.

The point is that a bigger population neutralizes the extremist ends.

Candid-Mycologist539

My 2¢.  No appointed official should stay over a decade. If you keep getting elected, great. But if one guy says, hey I like this guy and gives them a position, they should be replaced every 8-10 years.

AutomaticMonk

uvaspina1

I'd like to see the SC Justices become an elected position.  We vote for the president to head the Executive branch. We vote in the Senate and Congress in the Administrative branch.

Why are the highest positions in Justice appointed by the President.

need of new/more judges...   
Finances of all judges must be strictly monitored. if they want our whatsapp chats then they need to give up their chats too

[deleted]

true, but the problem is how we fix it?

The political class wants more power to appoint the judges , no guess on why they want it.

Similarly the bureaucrats are nowadays under the fire for being incompetent and having accountability , political class again would like to have more power to fire them.

Both Judiciary &amp;   bureaucrats need more accountability but the accountability shouldn't come by giving politicians more power ( which politicians are pushing towards) . Be careful what you wish for.

  
I will never understand why we don't have more courts , more judges and more lawyers when there are so many law graduates willing to work ! Who decides how many courts to open, why we have shortage of judges?

UnicornWithTits

Look up the amount of recommended judges we should have versus the amount we actually have. Its insane.

Imaginary_Ambition78

Don’t wish for the abolition of the separation of powers, as that’s essentially the death of democracy. Independent judiciary is important to ensure that government is accountable and citizens can hold government accountable to the law.

Judicial misconduct can also be an issue. An independent judicial integrity commission is possibly an option, but very clear mandate and transparency is required around it so that so it’s not used by the executive branch of government to intimidate the judiciary into becoming a lackey of the executive. Any some commission needs independent tenure and funding that the executive can’t touch.

SuperannuationLawyer

There is next level of money a person makes if he gets government job from constable to income tax office job to IAS to Minister of Doing Nothing.

Thats why people waste so many years on MPSC,UPSC, or any banking exams, if it succeeds it will be worth for them.

My friend recently passed exam and is now selected to be PSI, there is so much respect for him in society, everybody treating him like he won Olympic Medal.

The Power these people hold is so much, they can decide if our documents are enough are not (despite all necessary documents provided), how much bribery you can give us in casual way.

We need accountable government who is fully transparent to solve the main issues country is facing.

Rare-Progress-4939

Bro in the US, the judiciary is literally withholding all presidential orders. So, it is not just in India. In India, rather the CJI invites the PM over for Ganesh Puja.

Rude-Sea-3607

that would be rebellion what you are saying

hatedByyTheMods

__beacrox__

Only 12% of judges have declared their financials. The corrupt judge caught with 15+cr while he was holidaying in europe is still working business as usual as if nothing happened.

Everyone i talk to which is aspirant for becoming a judge , explain how much under the table money is their in lower courts or probably higher as well. 

I believe all the judges should be thoroughly audited and mandatory declare their financials and court proceedings recorded and telecasted live on tv.

HistoricalArt787

Frankly the people are stuck in an "idhar khai,udhar kua" situation. We can either have the current judiciary with all its flaws or if the politicians change the judiciary then they just make things worse. 

Starting with the fact that the judiciary is the only thing keeping reservation at 50% and stopping it from expanding into the private sector. If politicians can mess with the judiciary then they might introduce reservation for judges too. 

And there's no guarantee that the judiciary will improve with government intervention. For all we know it could become much more corrupt than it already is and becomes a laptop for politicians to give whatever judgements they please. When has politicians doing something ever improved things for the middle class?

Fantastic-Corner-605

I worked in the leg branch for quite a while.  Congressional offices are like the wild wild West compared to Exec branch....literally can appoint virtually anyone to do almost anything and pay them however much or as little as they want (with some limitations).  It can be a wild ride for sure since you could be out of a job every two years if you work in the house and six if you work in the Senate.  

For the support offices/agnecies, I would say they are structured more like the exec branch with pay levels and steps etc.  I always thought the Library of Congress would be a neat place to work (Edit to clarify that LOC is its own agency in the leg branch ...I just threw this in as a random thought late at night).  I can't personally attest to their exact structures since I only worked in Member offices. 

Pro I would say it is a cool place to work and you see some amazing stuff even if you are support staff (almost ran over Jon Stewart because he wouldn't get out of my way when I was rushing haha). The pay isn't bad either. 

Con- the job market is limited and your experience can somewhat trap you if you work in a very specialized area of the leg branch.  I made the jump to exec because I didn't want to get trapped in the DMV my entire life and the further I went down my path the harder it would be to get away and make an actual living/have a career.  I considered trying to move into the support side but exec offered more options.

Dangerous_Data6749

I worked in the Judiciary. I hated it, to be honest. We had so few protections and could be fired on a whim. The work could also be incredibly stressful and my week could be ruined based on how my manager happened to be feeling at the time. 

I'm in the executive branch and much happier.

Unyx

I went from Exec to Judiciary and I enjoyed the change. Yes, way less protection but I i like the work a lot better.

JamesBKMD

I spent two years at the GAO, which is legislative. Great place to work. Mostly remote nowadays. Would go back for the right job.

fozzie33

I used to work for GAO, which is under the Legislative Branch, until 2003.  Every time the Republicans took ever, since 1994 we would sweat bullets.  But, the cuts were never as bad as they projected.

Jprev40

Leg branch here.. worked for members for a while then switched to a support agency and I love it.

youngmoneymarvin

Without doxing myself too badly (what the hell, I retire in 13 months), I love working outside of the executive branch.  I spent 4 1/2 years with DOD, 12 years with DOJ, and my current position has by far been my best.  I have had opportunities that were way too "good old boy" in those other departments.  I'd never go back.

LakeLifeTL

I’m feeling more secure in non-exec these days. I’m worried for my friends at State, IC, EPA, etc. 

I’ve always been excepted service across different branches of government so that might be the more important question here 😅😅😅

No, they are not. Employees outside of the Executive have little protection and can essentially be terminated at will. Further, since the managers in the other branches are permitted to act with almost complete impunity, they don't know much about their own department's HR requirements. Also consider that neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature has an Inspector General. There is no independent oversight.

mysoiledmerkin

Big difference between staffers in Member or Senator offices and everyone else.

I know guys in IT at the Senate and Architect of the Capitol.  They are on the GS scale, still 2210s, and generally the same personnel policies.  They’re treated well and are pretty happy with work.

Staffers, even if they are running a committee staff for a party, are politically structured and typically underpaid.  Many jump ship to leg affairs in an executive agency eventually.

ilBrunissimo

if congress have term limits then yes, Legislative Branch would be better (IMO). Judicial is a no go bc their life time appointment.

DaFuckYuMean

I think it’s depending on the agency. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is under executive iirc. It’d be interesting to see what he does there. My guess it could help the process of getting new reactors licensed. I don’t think they should be advising on reactor safety, medical uses etc. way out of their league. Ditto DOE

farmerbsd17

Yes. We have age minimums. We need maximum age limits these people are making decisions for a future they won't be involved in.

mattjf22

I am 82 years old. Personally, I feel that anyone my age who still gets off on power needs to be kept away from normal people. But to the point of this post, the world has been run by old people since the beginning of our species, and just look at the place!

Yes, if you were intelligent to begin with your wisdom and common sense will increase with age, but so will your cynicism. If you were a young jackass, you will become an old jackass — and a hide-bound prejudiced old jackass at that.

Give them a nice pension at 70, with the condition that if they mess with politics or government again they lose the pension.

SemichiSam

Yes, we need people who are in good mental shape to lead the country, and at around that age cognitive decline becomes more noticeable in many people

70 and as for president no one can run over 65 FFS get with the program folks just retire

Upstairs-Bid6513

Age requirement of 65, 2 term limit, Congress people serve 4 year instead of 2 year terms, and no campaigning more than 60 days before the election.

Deedoodleday

I feel like if we were to attach an age to it, it should be the age of retirement, but I feel like it would be more important to have term limits. Limits would fix almost all the same issues and address more, without arbitrarily deciding someone is too old to serve the state.

Askmyrkr

No, the problem isn't age, it's our election system.

Politicians get old in office because it's so fucking hard to vote them out!

End legal bribery, end FPTP, and we'll see a much healthier turnover in our political processes.

FountainsOfFluids

your_not_stubborn

I'll be the contrarian. If you're good, you're good, regardless of age. I'll take a 75-year-old who is smarter, savvier, and better representative of my values than a 35-year-old. If you don't like them because they're senile, don't vote for them, that's all. Honestly, I feel the same about lower-age limits that aren't just the age of majority.

walkerintheworld

I would go even younger at 70, sure that may mean we would lose Bernie, we would also be ditching McConnell, Pelosi, and the other fossils in office who refuse to address the problems we face

Daryno90

Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.

We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

People don't realize how much SCOTUS justices would make if they went into private practice.

Appellate law firms basically trip over themselves to gobble up ex-SCOTUS **clerks**. $500,000 signing bonuses, or something in there, $200,000+ a year starting salaries, and fast tracks to partner are pretty commonplace.

An ex SCOTUS justice could probably ask for triple (if not more) that signing bonus and a higher salary than their old job too. Because it turns out having someone who wrote half the relevant opinions in a case on your legal team might be just a little beneficial. 

That's on top of being allowed to take far more lucrative teaching and public speaking opportunities

ROSRS

Keep in mind that as a Supreme Court Justice, you could pretty much go from there to any job you wanted either at a law firm or teaching in academia. Plenty of justices have taught a course while on the bench. It used to not be normal for someone to stay on the bench until death, they could retire and make more money in the private sector after their SCOTUS experience

Also remember that SCOTUS justices have probably the strongest job security in the country and great benefits

FishermanConstant251

TL;DR: The Chief makes $286,700; the Associate Justices make $274,200.

/r/savedyouaclick

Urgullibl

Concerns were raised regarding judges accepting government posts after retirement, which may compromise judicial independence and public trust.

Judicial Independence and Post-Retirement Government Roles

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want