quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

so I guess the problem is just the religious persons.

I thought that was the point you were making, and to answer your previous post: no, no this isn't my answer.

And, science and religion do attempt to answer the same philosophical question to an extent: "how should I live my life?". Only one attempts to verify propositions.

There is room for both science and religion in this world. In some aspects religion is preferable, and certainly some science type folks can be as militant as the next man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe Congress would be overstepping their Constitutional authority by deciding how the Supreme Court handles cases.

If they're unhappy with a SCOTUS decision, they can try to change relevant legislation to fix the situation. If course, new legislation cannot go against the Constitution itself

One solution Cruz mentioned is term limits for the Supremes

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe Congress would be overstepping their Constitutional authority by deciding how the Supreme Court handles cases.

If they're unhappy with a SCOTUS decision, they can try to change relevant legislation to fix the situation. If course, new legislation cannot go against the Constitution itself

One solution Cruz mentioned is term limits for the Supremes

That goes against the Constitution though. Lifetime appointments guarantee continuity of the law, even as political and social climates change around them.

It would create far too much instability and uncertainty if decisions like gay marriage, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc were retried continuously as new courts are seated. We already have this bipolar disorder in our Executive & Legislative branches of government.

Anyway, changing how SCOTUS Justices serve is a matter for Constitutional Amendment, a process we really haven't seen successful in over 40 years. Our last Amendment waited over 200 years before being ratified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe Congress would be overstepping their Constitutional authority by deciding how the Supreme Court handles cases.

If they're unhappy with a SCOTUS decision, they can try to change relevant legislation to fix the situation. If course, new legislation cannot go against the Constitution itself

One solution Cruz mentioned is term limits for the Supremes

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246
Another solution I have seen proposed is a term for each justice of 18 years, with one justice retiring every two years.

It has been pointed out that when the "lifetime" appointment was first instituted, normal life spans were around 50 years (or less). With today's average life spans approaching 80 years (and many people living into their 90's), some justices have and will be sitting on the bench for 40-50 years.

18-year terms would also mean each 4-year presidential term would include the opportunity to appoint two new justices, instead of the current situation where there can (and have been) several successive presidential terms with no appointments, and then a term or two with 3 or 4 appointments due to death/retirement.

But, as already pointed out, all of this would have to be accomplished through Constitutional amendment which is highly unlikely in the current political environment.