Changes to the Supreme Court

[teskak]

I read on an earlier thread the comment that the composition of the Supreme Court is likely to change if Obama is elected because some of the judges have been delaying retirement until there is a Democrat in charge.

Is that true? Do Supreme Court justices have mandatory retirement ages or can they just keep going until illness takes over?

Sorry if the question sounds simplistic - but since I do not live in the USA, I am not sure about "all" of USA politics - although thanks to the Dis I get a pretty good understanding

 

[ChelleinNC]

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they can retire when/if they want to or stay on the bench until they die.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

Constitutionally all Federal Judges (District Courts, Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court) are appointed for life.

At a "normal" retirment age a Judge (other than Supreme Court) may elect "Senior Judge" status. At this time the Judge will continue to receive full salary and benefits for the rest of their life. Most Judges will continue to serve as Judges, but with reduced caseload, at their discretion, until they decide to have a zero caseload.

A Supreme Court Justice will still be provided office space and administrative support, but will no longer be on the Bench and actually is considered retired.

 

[corndog]

Or until impeachment.

 

[bicker]

Also note that the oldest judges, generally, are the most liberal judges, so Obama's appointments would simply maintain the balance, not change it, like McCain/Palin appointments would.

 

[corndog]

Also note that the oldest judges, generally, are the most liberal judges, so Obama's appointments would simply maintain the balance, not change it, like McCain/Palin appointments would.

How do we know what the right "balance" is?

If Scalia retired, should Obama appoint a conservative justice to "maintain the balance"?

 

[bicker]

Good point: The Supreme Court has been driven far too reactionary over the last eight years, so the correct balance would see some of the more reactionary judges replaced with more progressive judges, but expecting any of them to retire would be a pipe dream.

 

[moburg]

Good point: The Supreme Court has been driven far too reactionary over the last eight years, so the correct balance would see some of the more reactionary judges replaced with more progressive judges, but expecting any of them to retire would be a pipe dream.

The current court is the textbook definition of balanced. 4 Justices that are reliably liberal. 4 that are reliably conservative. And one Justice who you just never know.

2 big cases I can think of over the past several years were completely opposite idealogically. Kelo v New London ravaged the idea of private property rights and in the majority were the 4 liberals and the swing vote. Granted, Kelo v New London was prior to Alito and Roberts, but given their perceived idealogy, that decision would not have been different.

And DC v Heller upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and knocked down DC's law as unconstitutional. The majority were the 4 conservatives and the swing vote.

If this were a "conservative" court, Kelo v New London would have been shot down, period! And a "liberal" court would have sided with DC.

Again, it is currently the very definition of a balanced court!