The majority of Americans support the idea of setting term limits or an age for retirement for Supreme Court justices, according to a new poll out Thursday from Fix the Court (FTC).

The group, which is working to make the court more transparent and accountable, found in a new online poll conducted with PSB that 78 percent of Americans said they strongly support or somewhat support restrictions on the length of service for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

“Had the Founders known that one day Supreme Court justices would serve for monarchic 30 or 35 years, they might have considered defining what constitutes ‘good behavior’ in Article III of the Constitution,” FTC Executive Director Gabe Roth said in a statement.

Continue reading:  Majority of Americans support term limits for Supreme Court justices, new poll finds

20 thoughts on “Majority of Americans support term limits for Supreme Court justices, new poll finds

  1. Totally agree with term-restrictions as well. Domestic circumstances and ever-evolving needs and dynamics in this nation are NOTHING like they were in the 18th or early 19th centuries! Time to adapt and keep up with the times America… the brave(?)! 😉

    Liked by 3 people

        • I’m all for a secular version—A grand overhaul! Term limits now, for all of them. I know there are reasons some are against it, but what the hell could it hurt at this point? Across the board, 1 term and done before they get entrenched in money, popularity, and corruption. Ineffective? Sure. Govt couldn’t be any less effective than it is now. At least it could curb corruption. Lobbying should be restricted even more.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Honestly, it is no different than all the pro sports leagues around the world — if you don’t keep updating and refining the rules of conduct, etc, etc, every single season teams, players, owners, staff, etc, intentionally learn ways to cheat… legally. LOL Duh!

          Liked by 3 people

        • Hahahaha! Yep, against them and with them. 😉 But seriously, one group calls it “competition” and/or “incentive.” Another group calls it the pestilence of unfettered capitalism fueled by greed and power. Is it rocket science? Eh, not really. Human nature? For some/most. 😉

          Liked by 2 people

        • My junior college team in the early 80s was very international. Not only was the cheating better than our futbol, their futbol was better than ours too. I was the token American.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Exactly, professor.

      The U.S. Constitution should be viewed as a “work in progress” and we should never forget to analyze changes in society that should be reflected in that document. It should undergo a constant evolution.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The politicians who’ve sold their integrity have ruined concepts instituted with good intentions and which could be helpful in running an efficient government.

        Capitalism truly is a plague that infects every aspect of life that it’s introduced to and can conceivably infect anything whether invited to or not. The priesthood have pulled the wool over the minds of the congregation and are laughing all the way to the bank due to how deeply their indoctrination has taken root. They don’t even have to work at it anymore, it’s all done by church members who’ve swallowed the kool-aid.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I have always, since high school, been opposed to life time appointments for federal judges. But I would approach it by requiring them to retire at age 65 with a pension for life. That financial security helps insure their judicial independence.

    The founders wanted lifetime appointments to insure their independence.
    And the framers of the constitution did not brliece in democracy.

    Some of them wanted the president to be elected for life.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Interesting idea about forced retirement at 65.

      The Founding Fathers didn’t want a direct democracy, but they did implement a representative democracy. We must be careful about applying today’s standards retroactively to yesterday’s leaders. The fact remains that America’s Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were extremely progressive documents conceived at a time when the world was drowning in authoritarianism.

      Liked by 3 people

      • They did not want representative democracy by majority vote. That is why they made it so hard to amend the constitution. They thought majority vote was just mob rule. . They also wanted to restrict the vote to men of property who were educated and successful.


        • Fact: The U.S. is a representative democracy based on the rule of law (i.e. a republic). That is, unless Trump is successful in destroying it.

          Not fact: That your opinion accurately reflects what was in the minds of many different people who lived over two centuries ago.

          Rebuttal: If the Founding Fathers were so unified in their opposition to democracy, in any form, then why did they not specifically preclude it in the Constitution? They certainly had the opportunity to do so.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Your personal opinion of me is duly noted. However, it and your comments regarding democracy in America are off topic to this post. There are appropriate venues available for you to discuss such a topic, but not here.

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.