How silly can NYT be?

"If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values. . . ."

Like just what? Values popular among liberal law professors?

If the Court was more in line with actual "popular values", this jackass would probably emigrate. What a maroon.

What this story expresses is the left's belated realization of how effed they are because of our success is setting up a conservative majority on the court.

It is, as they say, mighty risible. The witches and queers opened ther eyes one day and found the mackrel-snappers firmly in control of American law.

Great piece of work, Tovarischii; just keep remembering how good it felt to have your party keep nominating one far-left wacko after another.

Funny thing is, is anyone else getting just a whiff of desperation.... the desperation of people who realize that George W. Bush....WON'T BE AROUND ANY MORE PRETTY SOON!

"Heaven... I mean... Gaia help us! Whatever will we do? How can we survive without our Anti-Christ? Woe to us all!"

Yap yap yap. Do these people realize that the ones they have been preaching to still lap up every word... the rest of us tuned out ages ago.

I'm with the author, how about a bill that forces every justice over 70 years of age to retire?

Somehow, I don't think that will quite help the author's cause...

Thank you NYT for saying what needed to be said!

Yes, yes, yes, by all means this issue should now be highlighted and the Democratic candidates for President should have to clarify their own views on the subject.

Agree with the NYT that the court should be stacked and you can ... be nominated, but take a body blow in the general election.

Disagree with the NYT and you can ... win a moral victory in the primaries.

Choose your opponent wisely; choose the NYT.

At 80 years or after 25 years tenure, which ever comes first.

Or how about a 10 year term, but the justice can be reappointed and reconfirmed.

I dunno Raoul, given his general fitness, and advances in medicine, I'm looking forward to 50 years of the Roberts' court.

A mandatory retirement age would violate the Constitution, so it's a non-starter.

A mandatory retirement age would violate the Constitution, so it's a non-starter.

Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise :)

Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise :)
Or a Constitutional amendment.

Or the sun rises in the west.

Whichever comes first. I bet on the sun.

Age restrictions obviously can't be unconstitutional.

Don't be too sure, OJ. "Congress shall make no law....."

But 5 justices obviously can't read.

How would an age restriction be "unconstitutional"? There are already minimum requirements in that document. An amendment which sets an explicit maximum would be beyond even the ability of a Brennan or Marshall to "interpret."

50 years of the Roberts' court.

Which is why I think some sort of renewable term will become inevitable.

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour."

It could be gotten around but only if the judges agree and, in any event, that's more the sort of thing the other side does.

Against it on principle. Unintended consequences and all that.

If you look at the professor's article carefully, you see that the only examples of court-packing (or strategic reduction) since 1868 occurred during the highly corrupt Grant administration, and in 1938, when FDR engaged in what the author admits was a convoluted exercise in chicanery and subterfuge...his words, not mine. So much for the "hallowed tradition" of court-packing. Some commentary here: http://www.amusedcynic.com/?p=362

Also, when The Court overreaches, the Constitutional check is for the Executive branch to not enforce.....not for the Legislative branch to adopt the "I can indict a ham sandwich" approach of abusing the system through legalistic extortion, or threats thereof.