Wednesday, October 30, 2013


In the past few week I have posted articles concerning Term Limits for Congress, for the office of president and now for the final article in this series, The Supreme Court.  I hope that you take time to read, comment and share these ideas with others.  It is indeed past time that Limits be set on the time all these individuals can serve.  The days of the "professional politician" and "lifer" need to end if this country is to survive in any shape or form of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set forth on this great adventure. 

The Judiciary:  Article III of the US Constitution establishes "one supreme court" and "inferior courts to be established by the Congress.  The  law defines the types of cases that the Supreme Court will hear.  It states that "all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution."  Unfortunately , justice is not always the result of the Courts decisions. (when the court sided with business in the 2005 takeover of homes in New London, Connecticut ( Kelo v New London, lawsuit challenging  eminent domain abuse in New London) is but one recent example. 

The Constitution established the term for these judges as being "during good behavior" which differed from British Law  which stated at the "kings pleasure".  This was done to signal a division of political independence.  Unfortunately this has not been the intended result of the Founding Fathers.   As we know and have witnessed, the procedure for nomination of Justices to the Supreme Court is the president appoints the justices and the Senate confirms them, which of course opens the door to politicizing the entire process.  A politically independent court is an oxymoron.  There are no checks applied to the judiciary. They are beyond the bounds of the democratic process.

The court was intended to be the weakest of the branches of government but has instead grown to the most powerful. Instead of being a place of "trial" to hear arguments concerning the Constitution it has become a place of legislation thus usurping the powers of the Congress.  Court decisions such as Roe v Wade have come to be declared the law of the land but yet no law has been passed by the Congress to uphold such a court ruling.

The current appointment procedures are highly politicized. The president nominates a judge more in the line of political correctness rather on the basis of highest qualifications. Many will remember Robert Bork who was nominated. He was a very highly qualified appointee but the Senate Judicial Committee interrogated him as if he were a criminal.  The reason was he failed to agree to carry out the agenda of the political party in power at the time.  The same thing occurred with Clarence Thomas who was subjected to more political scrutiny than  competent evaluation of his legal acumen.   A short time later we had two justices nominated, Sotomayer and Kagan, and the committee was nothing more than a political circus, a total dog and pony show as the questions presented to them were nothing more than political ideologue rather than being based on competence of the Constitution and rule of law.   What we need is accountability rather than proven party allegiance and unjustified protection from the peoples dissatisfaction.  This is indeed an urgent need, not a one sided political statement.

So I submit that it is indeed time that the Supremes be subject to Term limits.  What is needed is younger minds who know and understand the constitution and are willing to stand up and say so regardless of the political party in power.  They claim that with age comes wisdom and that may be true to a certain point but having judges appointed basically for life is not what the Founding Fathers intended neither did they intend that the Court usurp the powers of the Legislative branch as has been done for more than 65 years.    It's time for  a change and I hope you agree and will suggest such to those who represent you or who are suppose to represent you.  If they take no action other than sending you a form letter it is time by all means that these people discover that We The People are not stupid and demand that the elected look out for our  interest rather than their own or they will find themselves looking for a job soon. 

I realize that four articles are a lot to digest and understand so I suggest that you re-read each of the articles, check the Constitution and the meaning of the founders and then you will certain understand that what has been presented is absolutely necessary if this country is to survive as the Republic that is was established.  We can no longer allow the secular progressives to re-write the laws through Executative orders nor through Judiciary fiat. 

Thank you for reading. 


Anonymous said...

Mr. Ticker, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Supremes, their nomination process and tenure are overdue for review. Every aspect of our government is being abused, mis-interpreted, and applied for nefarious purposes which the Founders had no intention of supporting. I must state that I left the good 'ol USofA before Barry became Chief Thief of the Socialist Movement and their redistributive intentions. What I have found living in the Philippines are some interesting ideas even though the implementation has it's own problems. The President serves one six year term and cannot run again. The Supreme Court has mandatory retirement at age 70, which I find rather interesting although here it was manipulated quite handily by previous Pres. Gloria M. Arroyo. She appointed ten of the justices during her "extended" tenure. I still have not studied how that happened but it is a problem because the next president will get to appoint many who are due to retire.

My point is that the SCOTUS is nothing special deserving of life-time appointments. The fact that they are so political makes them perfect for some kind of term limitations. If it is a hard sell, then I would think at least a mandatory retirement age would be more agreeable to all sides. Leaving it up to a Justice to die or time their retirement is stay in office possible way too long, just as it is for Senators to stay for 30-40 or more years. I do not consider such tenures a sign of great civil service, only of self-service because if these people were truly civil servants they would serve their time and move out and on into another private arena.

Always On Watch said...

Recent editorial in the Washington Post: "End presidential term limits."

Note the final paragraph:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Can you believe it? Some people want to make Barack Hussein Obama President for life!