Please provide sources!
2007-02-09 12:52:35 · 16 answers · asked by firebreaker_7 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Article 3 of the US constitution specifies that the time limit for Supreme Court justices is unlimited. They can be impeached by the Senate, but otherwise, they serve until they die or decide to quit.
Theoretically, the Senate could sponsor a Constitutional Amendment that would allow them to set term limits for future justices... but that isn't going to happen.
2007-02-09 13:06:28 · answer #1 · answered by apothegm1066 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. Congress cannot amend the Constitution. They can pass an amendment, but it MUST be ratified by the states.
Interesting enough, I read in the paper that several states have revived the old ERA (equal rights amendment) from 1972. It was NOT able to be ratified by enough states during the time limit. I assume someone things they can get a few more states and then argue that there should be no time limit. Who knows? But I would bet this is an attempt to force legalization of gay marriage.
2007-02-09 13:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Source: the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life by the President, subject to confirmation (approval) by the Senate. There's no way that can change unless the Constitution is amended.
2007-02-09 12:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The constitution does not limit their terms.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It took a constitutional amendment to limit presidential terms.
Amendment XXII - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
2007-02-09 13:56:45 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on the State aspect I say it is as a lot because the voters of the State (and evidently, what the State structure says) i bypass again and forth in this one for US ultimate courtroom Justices. The structure obviously says lifetime appointment and no relief in pay so that they do no longer ought to worry being elected and would make 'independent' elections. no matter if it is in the structure then that is the regulation of the land and that i help that position. besides the undeniable fact that, it also says that because the ultimate courtroom Justices are appointed and not in any respect elected they are meant to be the weakest of the three branches of authorities. That went out the door almost at present after the structure grow to be ratified (See "Marbury v. Madison") and liberals were 'legislating from the bench' each and every considering. an effective attitude, i imagine, is to make stronger the impeachment guidelines for judges and each and every time it might properly be proved that a ultimate courtroom decide (or any decide for that count number) overstepped their bounds a particular type of situations (say 5 situations as an get mutually) they may well be impeached and removed from workplace. that provides them the autonomy the structure demands and nonetheless keeps them honest.
2016-12-03 23:31:32 · answer #5 · answered by anuj 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.NO they cannot, but I believe there should be a term limit on Supreme Justices, they need to change because they stay there until their so old, that their really outdated. I wish they would pass a law like 8 years and your out. Look at all of them , they are to old to make good decisions. Look at Thomas and 2 or 3 more all of them are just to old., they can't hardly get round.
2007-02-09 13:10:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they amend the Constitution.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
article 3 section 1
2007-02-09 13:21:15 · answer #7 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Congress must present such a law as a Constitutional Amendment, which must be ratified by the 3/4 of the states.
2007-02-09 12:58:50 · answer #8 · answered by jhartmann21 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no - the constitution says that federal justices are appointed during times of good behavior. this has been interpreted to mean that the justices can do almost anything without losing their appointment
2007-02-09 12:59:57 · answer #9 · answered by jdphd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not unless they change the constitution. Justices are there for life
2007-02-09 12:57:03 · answer #10 · answered by kungfumasterzod 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋