Opinion It’s Time for Term Limits on the Supreme Court

17:35  25 november  2019
17:35  25 november  2019 Source:   nationalreview.com

Google and Oracle copyright fight is headed to the Supreme Court

  Google and Oracle copyright fight is headed to the Supreme Court Oracle previously asked for $8.8 billion in damages. Oracle sued Google in 2010 over copyright and patent infringement allegations for its use of the Java programming language in Android, now the world's most popular mobile operating system. Oracle obtained the rights to Java when it acquired Sun Microsystems. Google has said that under fair use laws it didn't need a license for the open-source software.

Murmurs of concern swept through Washington, D.C., Friday night as news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a four- time cancer survivor, was back in the hospital.Luckily, doctors said it was only because of chills and fever, and she went home Sunday.

"Why It ' s Time to Get Serious About Supreme Court Term Limits " is the headline at the Washington Post. And over on the op-ed pages, Yale University liberals Ian "A statute might designate all future Supreme Court seats as 18-year terms , with justices sitting on the court by designation, followed by

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

a group of people standing in front of United States Supreme Court Building© Leah Millis/Reuters

Murmurs of concern swept through Washington, D.C., Friday night as news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a four-time cancer survivor, was back in the hospital.

Luckily, doctors said it was only because of chills and fever, and she went home Sunday. But Ginsburg’s health remains a topic of discussion in D.C. She missed a day of oral argument last week owing to stomach pain, less than three months after completing treatment for her fourth bout with cancer. She missed two weeks of oral argument earlier this year because of lung cancer surgery, and then in August endured three weeks of radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Google's fight with Oracle will be heard in the Supreme Court

  Google's fight with Oracle will be heard in the Supreme Court Google is getting one more shot at fending off Oracle's Android copyright claims. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Google's appeal of a federal appeals court ruling that Android violated Oracle copyright by using Java code without a license. The appeal will also address a 2014 decision that programing can be copyrighted. A decision is expected by July. This isn't the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue. In 2015, the court refused to hear an appeal over the 2014 decision and sent the issue back to a lower court. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

Term limits would make the Supreme Court more responsive and predictable. He would have been term - limited out long before his passing. In these partisan times , justices are staying on the bench longer, not wanting to leave unless they can be replaced in a political environment that ensures a

Term limits for the court are an excellent idea. It would take a constitutional amendment, but that’s O.K. The United States has already amended its Constitution It ’ s time for a change. The document release. President Trump took another outrageous step to protect himself yesterday, releasing a set of

Liberals live in a state of semi-panic that Ginsburg will leave the court and give President Trump the chance to name a third Supreme Court justice and put a conservative stamp on the body for a generation. Any Senate confirmation battle would be the mother of all political brawls, easily eclipsing the one last year surrounding Brett Kavanaugh.

It’s time to end the unseemly position that the anachronism of life tenure for Supreme Court justices has put the country in. It’s a good thing that modern medicine is extending the lives of everyone, including Supreme Court justices. But the time has come to remove the incentives that make justices serve until they drop dead or are gaga. It’s time to put term limits on the Supreme Court.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench after stomach bug

  Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench after stomach bug Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the bench on Monday after missing a day at the court last week due to a stomach bug. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); Ginsburg, 86, took her seat wearing one of her lace collars. The justices were there to grant new admissions to the bar, not to hear arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer was not present because he is traveling.This comes after the four-time cancer survivor missed an argument day last week.

Since US President Donald Trump took office he’ s had the chance to replace two Supreme Court justices, and he’ s choosing younger conservative voices which

Term Limits . Supreme Court justices should serve no longer than 18 years, and the next high If anything, the longer justices stay on the court , the more they pursue their own political agendas. Life tenure has turned Supreme Court nominations into a political circus. It ’ s no longer a priority to find

Our Founding Fathers granted life tenure to Supreme Court justices to ensure their independence. But that’s a relic of a day when the average life expectancy was 38. Today, it is more than twice that.

Now, Supreme Court justices can spend two generations on the bench. And, so long as they avoid impeachment, only they can decide when it’s time to leave. Judges today usually retire only when they can ensure a philosophically compatible successor. This can result in judges staying past their “sell by” date either physically or mentally. Examples in the past 50 years include Justices William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall.

Life tenure “is undemocratic by nature,” Gabe Roth, the executive director of the reform group Fix the Court, told The Atlantic magazine in 2015. “It sounds more like an oligarchy or a feudal system.”

Fix the Court has come up with a bipartisan proposal for 18-year term limits for the Supreme Court. A vacancy would come up every two years, meaning that every president would have at least two appointments in each term.

Manhattan DA asks Supreme Court to let them enforce subpoena for Trump tax returns

  Manhattan DA asks Supreme Court to let them enforce subpoena for Trump tax returns The Manhattan district attorney's office asked the Supreme Court to reject President Trump's effort to shield his tax returns from a grand jury subpoena, in a case where the president's lawyers have argued that he is immune to any criminal investigation or prosecution.A federal appeals court had ruled that Trump's accounting firm must hand over eight years of tax returns and other financial records and the president last week appealed that decision. The district attorney's office argued in a brief filed Thursday that the appellate ruling was narrowly focused to the facts of the case and does not merit a review from the nation's highest court.

And it would mean a Court that more accurately reflects the changes and judgments of the society." "The Constitution was written at a time when life tenure meant living into your 50 s because that' s what life expectancy was," legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of two books on the Supreme Court , has

It is time to move to term limits for the Supreme Court .” The proposal is backed by academics ranging from liberal Georgetown University Law Center Calabresi, who served in the Reagan and Bush Administrations from 1985 to 1990, is an expert on the presidency and the separation of powers.

The proposal could be enacted without amending the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 states that “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” This has been interpreted to mean that Supreme Court justices have a life tenure. But the Constitution is silent on what is meant by “Offices.” Nothing is said about judges remaining at their original posts for life.

So the Fix the Court plan would preserve the Constitution’s guarantee of tenure during “good Behavior” by having departing Supreme Court justices serve on one of the nation’s eleven appeals courts.

Naturally, some younger justices would opt out of continued judicial service and return to the private sector. For them ethics regulations would have to be crafted to protect against conflicts of interest. Retired judges might be barred from working for corporations or other entities that were a part of any case they had heard while they were on the Supreme Court.

As with the existing term limit for the president and the idea of term limits for Congress, the notion of pumping fresh judicial blood into the current system is popular with the public. A 2018 Morning Consult poll found that 61 percent of registered voters favored Supreme Court term limits (67 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans).

Ginsburg hospitalized for treatment of chills and fever

  Ginsburg hospitalized for treatment of chills and fever WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized after experiencing chills and fever, the court said Saturday. In a statement, the court’s public information office said Ginsburg was admitted Friday night to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington before being transferred to Johns Hopkins for further evaluation and treatment of any possible infection. With intravenous antibiotics and fluids, her symptoms abated and she expected to be released from the hospital as early as Sunday morning, the statement said.

Supreme Court term limits , reform proponents argue, would help “ It ’ s an incredibly strange system, to have this critical branch of government hinge on the health of a handful of octogenarians,” says Kerr. “Individuals may feel that their time with a certain cohort or their time on the Court is finite

Life terms might make sense if Supreme Court justices had life spans comparable to those of rock stars. But they don’t. Possibly because they don’t typically abuse drugs, or possibly because they don’t fly as often on private planes, Supreme Court justices live much, much longer than rock stars.

Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) and Justice Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton) have both indicated support for the idea. In a 1983 memo written when he served in the Reagan White House, Roberts wrote: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.”

Sadly, one hoped-for benefit of an 18-year nonrenewable Supreme Court term might not materialize in practice. In theory, an orderly changing of the guard on the Supreme Court should turn down the temperature of our current heated confirmation battles. The stakes, the theory goes, wouldn’t be as great if every senator knew that the justice they were voting on could serve a maximum of 18 years.

But the real reason confirmations are such brutal battles is that the Supreme Court plays too large a role in our society, as more and more issues fall under the scope of the Court. As the conservative Federalist Society recently noted:

The abundance of judges who do not view themselves as limited by constitutional or statutory text also drives the politicization of the confirmation process. By adding to the content of laws, they are acting as politicians rather than judges, and should expect a political selection process to match.

Returning our courts to their proper place in our constitutional framework is a tall order, and not one to be solved by abandoning life tenure for Supreme Court justices. But the idea is a sensible step, enjoys support from both conservative and liberal legal scholars, and just might give Congress the opportunity to prove to the American people that it’s still capable of bipartisan action.

Gun safety groups brace for Supreme Court moves on 2nd Amendment .
For the first time in nearly a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will consider Second Amendment rights in a closely watched case that worries gun safety advocates.The case involves a New York City law that prohibited licensed gun owners from taking their handguns to shooting competitions, gun ranges and second homes outside city limits. A federal appeals court upheld the regulation last year.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!