True. I’m sure I would have a different perspective. G. Edward White is 84 years old. He clerked for Earl Warren.
ETA: Also . . . this actually makes me feel good, because I recognized that this was someone noteworthy deserving of a biography, and someone who is an actual scholar, writer, and attorney clearly agreed. So if I like this biography and don’t feel I have anything to add, maybe I could find someone else to write about.
YOU are too. You busted your ass to get through law school, and that means you are a scholar.
But yeah, you could find some one else to write about…
What more do you need?
So there is another one - as in ONE, total - out there already. And? Your’s will be different and can offer perspectives and insights no-one else could.
Here’s a little extra motivation.
Seconded.
When I see your avatar in a thread @danimagoo, where the law is under discussion, I get particularly happy because I’m going to learn something interesting, and I know you’ll probably make it fun. I would love to see your words in a book.
I think this is a misread of what she is saying. I think her statement is that any term limits imposed on the court would not retroactively affect already-seated members of the court, since ex-post-facto laws are unconstitutional. Presumably, future seatings would be term-limited.
I think term limits for SCOTUS that boot justices out of the judiciary would be a mistake. That would make them too beholden to potential future employers during their term. However, booting them back out into the federal judiciary would bypass that concern. Essentially, rotating federal judges through SCOTUS and back out into the general pool of judges would allow them to remain independent but still limit the damage caused by shitty or corrupt judges like Thomas and Alito.
Of course, ethics rules with teeth are probably a higher priority…
This is the suggestion I’ve heard loudest, and it makes a ton of sense. #1 - gets rid of people just holding onto that seat and making terrible decision after terrible decision until death. #2 - that judge then is out on other courts using their (alleged) wisdom to judge ‘lesser’ cases. Basically a transfer of knowledge, which any normal industry lusts for.
To be clear, it’s only the headline that is misleading. The post itself correctly reports what she said and meant, which is exactly what you said. Specifically, Sotomayor allegedly said “you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you’ve earned.” I’m not sure I agree with her, although I’m not in favor of term limits. First of all, the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws has always been interpreted to apply to laws which are criminal or penal in nature. I suppose taking away someone’s lifetime appointment could be seen as a punishment, but that’s a stretch. Second, and more importantly, if a Constitutional amendment were passed setting that limit, it would override that ex post facto argument because it would be in the Constitution, not simply a statute. I mean, had FDR still been alive and in office when the 22nd Amendment was ratified, is she saying that he would have still been allowed to run for another term? That doesn’t make sense. I suspect she was speaking off the cuff, and hadn’t really thought that argument through.
Or - put them in federal judge senior status after a certain time on the Supreme Court.
I was going to bring that up. Most Justices, if they retire instead of dying in office, actually go into senior status. That’s what Breyer did. This is extremely common for federal appeals courts. The 9th Circuit currently has 23 judges on senior status.
Ug. I was hoping that we’d heard the last about Kim Davis but she’s still out there, and might just be key to the bigots overturning Obergefell:
Goddammit, I hate this Court so much.
To be fair, this Court has worked hard and diligently to earn that hatred.