Tuesday, July 19, 2005
I visited Sean Hannity’s site and was interested in a poll that was intended to find the public’s opinion. The question asked:
“Do you support having a mandatory retirement age for justices serving on the U.S. Supreme Court?”
Not too surprising, the results showed that 67.86% who took the time to answer the poll believe that there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices. The wrong question was asked, again not so surprising. The implication of mandatory age for retirement should be silenced as it demeans everyone. Some folks are sharp as a tack in their older years. They have every reason to be bitter when asked to step down from a position which they not only are capable of handling; but are in fact, superior to most anyone else based on their level of experience and wisdom. Age is not the issue, nor should it ever be the issue; whether we’re talking about Supreme Court Justices or ANY endeavor from Airline pilot to Zoo keeper.
The unspoken concern is that as these public servants ( choke, gag, and barf in the can ), might reach a point when their mental abilities come into question. Make no mistake, their mental abilities came into question the moment their names were placed before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. Properly stated, the public’s concern is that these fine folks might begin to suffer from CRS Syndrome, develop Dementia or exhibit any number of debilitating mental disorders which would limit their mental capacities and cause this nation to suffer; not that this nation doesn’t suffer when these fine folks operate with all cylinders clicking away. What’s the old saying, “they can’t do us any harm when they aren’t in session”?
The proper question would have been, “Should there be a specified term limiting the amount of time a Supreme Court Justice may occupy that position?” The fact remains that the ideological beliefs of anyone considered for such a position will be at odds with roughly half of those in a position to either accept or reject the nomination of any given person; without taking into consideration a drop off in either physical or mental capacities. If there were a known time limit such as has been attached to the office of the President, Senator or Representative then there would also be a limit to the influence that any one person might have in the capacity of Supreme Court Justice.
Should there be a term limit imposed on the duration for a Supreme Court Justice?
A. Life Term ( no change )
B. 12 years
C. 10 years
D. 8 years
E. 6 years
Please use the Comment Section to explain your position.
Don’t forget about the Carnival of Liberty coming up. ( linked via title bar )
Posted by T. F. Stern at 10:08 AM