Simple, NO! We shouldn't think we moderns are smart enough to go willy nilly "tampering" with The Constitution. When we have we cause unintended consequences far worse than a justice hanging on to their "seat" even though they might be long in the tooth.

There's history to show this. Enjoy a beer lately?

The Founders KNEW what they were doing.
It ain't their fault that our modern elected so called "leaders" FAIL the test of leadership by compromising their authority AND their choices to sit on the SCOTUS!

When President's play party politics instead of actually leading then this is what we get.
Justices for life who shouldn't have been appointed in the 1st GD place!

When the Constitution was written, life expectancy was much shorter than it is now.

How is that relevant?

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 10:27:00 AM (view original):
We both know that that isn't what is really happening.

What's not happening?

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'm just not a fan of picking an arbitrary number as a cutoff. We have had people in our nursing home in their 40's with alzheimer's and there are people in their 80's who are sharp as a whip. As far as keeping up with the times, that is not their job. Their job is to interpret law. A law written today will still carry the same meaning in 40 years. The wording of our constitution means the same thing today as when it was originally written.

The law is indeed the law, but the interpretation and application obviously changes.
Maybe it shouldn't, but words get interpreted differently by different generations and the "true intent" is argued about.

The interpretation and application change because judges subvert their powers. Those judges should be replaced. Obviously, some intent is debatable, but for the most part our legal code and constitution are pretty clear. The problem is not in the wording and intent of our constitution by our founders, but rather in the people elect. We need to elect representatives that hold bad judges accountable. That is on us, not our founders.

Interpreting law to "fit the times" is nothing more than legislating from the bench. We should not be encouraging this.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 10:59:00 AM (view original):
How is that relevant?

Well I am surmising they didn’t intend for 80yr olds to be Justices.

Based on what? The constitution nor the Federalist papers mention age for justices. It's entirely possible that the cognition of most 80 year olds is stronger today than 65 year olds in 1780. I don't care if a person is 100 if he/she is sharp enough to think critically. Ruth Bader Ginsberg hasn't shown any signs of decline in her mental state from what I can tell. Her health is fading for sure, but her mind still appears sharp.

I'm pretty sure John Marshall was in his 80's when he died (stopped serving). He served for about 35 years I believe. There is precedent for what's going on today since our country's beginning. And Tang mentioned something about justice hearings being politically charged. This has also been the case as long as our country has been around. One of the most famous cases in our country's history, Marbury v Madison, was exactly this. It was about politically charged confirmation hearings essentially. Adams pushed through a bunch of appointees within has last days in office before Jefferson, who was of a different party, took office. It obviously goes much deeper than that, but the point is that what we are seeing now is what people were seeing in 1800. We act like it's something new.

I don't see any compelling reason to change the rules now. I also don't see any compelling reason not to change the rules.

Hello, Goodbye

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bronxcheer on 3/14/2019 7:47:00 AM (view original):
Televise their shenanigans

They already do.

No, they don't

The Supreme Court of the United States does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session, a policy which is the subject of much debate.^[1] Although the Court has never allowed cameras in its courtroom, it does make audiotapes of oral arguments and opinions available to the public

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure John Marshall was in his 80's when he died (stopped serving). He served for about 35 years I believe. There is precedent for what's going on today since our country's beginning. And Tang mentioned something about justice hearings being politically charged. This has also been the case as long as our country has been around. One of the most famous cases in our country's history, Marbury v Madison, was exactly this. It was about politically charged confirmation hearings essentially. Adams pushed through a bunch of appointees within has last days in office before Jefferson, who was of a different party, took office. It obviously goes much deeper than that, but the point is that what we are seeing now is what people were seeing in 1800. We act like it's something new.

Pretty sure the average life-span pre-1800 was like 40 years.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/14/2019 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 10:27:00 AM (view original):
We both know that that isn't what is really happening.

What's not happening?

Debating the law and not politics.

Posted by bronxcheer on 3/14/2019 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/14/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bronxcheer on 3/14/2019 7:47:00 AM (view original):
Televise their shenanigans

They already do.

No, they don't

The Supreme Court of the United States does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session, a policy which is the subject of much debate.^[1] Although the Court has never allowed cameras in its courtroom, it does make audiotapes of oral arguments and opinions available to the public

Exactly
You can listen to the oral arguments on TV.