The US Supreme Court

[Ideologue]

I think it'd be interesting to appoint a non-lawyer justice.

Perhaps someone with just a J.D.

Perhaps someone who is likely to sit for thirty or more years.

Perhaps someone who would follow the Democratic Party in lockstep, or at least promise to.

Perhaps someone who likes Bon Jovi.

[CountDeMoney]

I still think that there should be 18 year term limits for Supreme Court justices, staggered 2 years apart.  We can Truman in the present ones, to sweeten the deal for the current crop.

Why not just put in a mandatory retirement age like we have?   

The problem with mandatory retirement age is that it doesn't solve the underlying problem:  judges are increasingly being picked by actuarial tables, to make sure that they advance their cause for the longest time possible.

No, judges are picked according to their opinion on Roe v Wade.

[The Minsky Moment]

I still think that there should be 18 year term limits for Supreme Court justices, staggered 2 years apart.  We can Truman in the present ones, to sweeten the deal for the current crop.  I think the Commerce Clause would be sufficient to empower Congress to enact those limits.

Article III begs to differ.

[11B4V]

There should  be a maximum number of terms on the house and senate

[Valmy]

There should  be a maximum number of terms on the house and senate

I want it to be unlimited with with a required 10 year break between terms.  It worked out great for the Roman Republic.

[11B4V]

There should  be a maximum number of terms on the house and senate

I want it to be unlimited with with a required 10 year break between terms.  It worked out great for the Roman Republic.

nice

[Berkut]

Since the court system seems to be the real place policy is made, I thought this is a good question to ponder.

I disagree with your premise.

[DGuller]

I still think that there should be 18 year term limits for Supreme Court justices, staggered 2 years apart.  We can Truman in the present ones, to sweeten the deal for the current crop.  I think the Commerce Clause would be sufficient to empower Congress to enact those limits.

Article III begs to differ.

Damn lawyers trying to insert themselves into every debate.

[The Brain]

I think it'd be interesting to appoint a non-lawyer justice.

Perhaps someone with just a J.D.

Perhaps someone who is likely to sit for thirty or more years.

Perhaps someone who would follow the Democratic Party in lockstep, or at least promise to.

Perhaps someone who likes Bon Jovi.

I don't know. What would he think of air power?

[dps]

Is it possible for the SCOTUS to have mostly judges that aren't classified as liberal or conservative? Is it possible to determine constitutionality without being one or the other, in a more impartial manner? I kind of cringe a little when I hear that the conservatives, or liberals, will decide a case.

No, because no president will pass up the chance to put someone on the court that is on their team.

Of course, some justices have been found out to not exactly be on the team that the President who appointed them thought that they were on.

[Berkut]

I was thinking today that lawyers are uniquely ill suited to become judges.

They've spent their entire professional careers with an mission of almost exactly the opposite of what a judge is supposed to think about in regards to the law. A judge should respect the law first and foremost, but a lawyer's job is to figure out how to use the law to serve their clients interests.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want a judge to do. A lawyer starts from the perspective that they need to figure out how to present and interpret the law to achieve a desired outcome. While we expect judges to reverse that completely.

[garbon]

I was thinking today that lawyers are uniquely ill suited to become judges.

They've spent their entire professional careers with an mission of almost exactly the opposite of what a judge is supposed to think about in regards to the law. A judge should respect the law first and foremost, but a lawyer's job is to figure out how to use the law to serve their clients interests.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want a judge to do. A lawyer starts from the perspective that they need to figure out how to present and interpret the law to achieve a desired outcome. While we expect judges to reverse that completely.

Not all lawyers are defense attorneys...unless you are using clients in the loosest sense.

[Ideologue]

I think it'd be interesting to appoint a non-lawyer justice.

Perhaps someone with just a J.D.

Perhaps someone who is likely to sit for thirty or more years.

Perhaps someone who would follow the Democratic Party in lockstep, or at least promise to.

Perhaps someone who likes Bon Jovi.

I don't know. What would he think of air power?

Constitutionally mandated.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think Berk's being too unfair on lawyers.

Also there's more to being a judge than respecting the law (especially in a common law country), if that's all it was then we'd end up with a really formal legalist system.  The other extreme is maybe treating the law in a somewhat cavalier way to deliver a result that's just, the Lord Denning approach (and now I feel like a full law student).

[Ideologue]

I was thinking today that lawyers are uniquely ill suited to become judges.

They've spent their entire professional careers with an mission of almost exactly the opposite of what a judge is supposed to think about in regards to the law. A judge should respect the law first and foremost, but a lawyer's job is to figure out how to use the law to serve their clients interests.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want a judge to do. A lawyer starts from the perspective that they need to figure out how to present and interpret the law to achieve a desired outcome. While we expect judges to reverse that completely.

I dunno.  Not necessarily.  Lawyers, like judges, are supposed to consider all aspects of a case rationally, including/especially that which is unfavorable to their client.  This is so that they can advise their client properly.  They simply have to be able to pack that up when zealous advocacy is required and comparatively stupid arguments need to be advanced.