I am ready for Term Limits.....

[eppur_se_muova]

13. I'm opposed to term limits on elected positions, totally pro for appointed positions.

I have an objection to term limits for electees that I've never heard anyone else mention. Simply put, the voters who vote in each election are a different set of people. Suppose you have a very effective Senator representing you -- and you were 7 years old when they were elected. You grow up admiring this person, and almost everything you learn about them, including the votes they've taken in Congress, only increases your admiration. Then you turn 19 and finally you can vote for this person, who has done so much to help your District, and you are told "No, you can't vote for them, other people already voted for them twice." And you say "But about 20% of those people are dead now ! It's a completely different electorate ! Besides, why should I be denied my vote just because someone else already used theirs ?" In general, I favor policies that increase the number of available candidates, not reduce them, so that we can make the best choice from as broad a field as possible. That's not a perfect approach, but if you start to whittle away at the pool of candidates for fairly arbitrary reasons, you can leave yourself without a good candidate to oppose the GOP.

As much as I detest Trmp, I remember that the limit on Presidential terms was brought on by vengeful Republicans who were frozen out of the WH by a Dem President of unparalleled popularity. I wouldn't want to see Trmp have a chance at a third term -- but what rule would permit Trmp to run again, while not allowing Obama (or even Clinton) to do the same ?

As to SCOTUS -- for a long time I felt that this rule should be left as it is because it was effective for a very long time -- but that was due to GOP Senators taking their duty to "advise and dissent" seriously, rather than as a mechanism of ideological dominance. That no longer holds, indeed the opposite is thoroughly true. Add Mitch McConnell's sleazy, underhanded, traitorous manipulation of the process to prevent another Obama appointee while giving Trmp another open SCOTUS seat to fill with a grossly underqualified candidate, and it's clear Something Must Be Done. Term limits would not only limit the ability of a corrupt President to dismantle justice, but would remove most, if not all, of the advantage of picking very young candidates. Kavanaugh and Barrett would never have been nominated except for the possibility of their remaining on the bench longer than any more experienced, more qualified, older candidate. Set a term limit on SCOTUS appointees, and the "youth bonus" goes away, giving us older, more experienced judicial candidates of either party. It would also mean that older judges in lower courts would not be "frozen out" from advancement to the SCOTUS, which they are at present -- a grossly unjust arrangement.

As to the length of such appointments, I have trouble choosing. One possibility would be six- or seven-year appointments, with a reappointment of the same judge by the same President requiring a smaller margin of votes in Congress -- In the belief that a judge who made no really objectionable rulings would likely be as suitable a choice for *either* party as a new appointee with no track record -- or one deliberately more partisan, if Congress is uncooperative. Alternatively, appointments in the 9-14 year range would mean that a Justice who was particularly objectionable to one party or the other couldn't be replaced until 2-3 more Presidential terms were up. That has advantages and disadvantages, but it doesn't favor younger appointees nearly as much as the current situation.

I'm currently favoring a scheme by which the number of Justices is not limited, but the number of Justices appointed by a particular Administration is -- with both a maximum and a minimum. This would mean every POTUS got at least one (maybe two) chances to put forth a candidate, if not an actual appointment by default, and a two-term President two (maybe four). Of course, the total number on the Court would fluctuate, so four Justices from the same President wouldn't necessarily give the POTUS's party control of the SCOTUS. Nor would deaths or retirements necessarily mean an open position, removing a little bit of random chaos. I may write a little more on that in a separate post.