Readers React: Supreme Court term limits could put an end to take-no-prisoners confirmation fights
To the editor: Here’s hoping we see additional articles, until they become a drumbeat, advocating the extremely sensible solution of establishing term limits for Supreme Court justices. This has become the most important issue of our day.
Let’s face it: Every difference that appears in society — be it a political question, nuance over child custody or air pollution regulation — ends up in court. Who wouldn’t want his or her viewpoint reflected in the court of last resort, the aptly named Supreme Court?
This anxiety has led to a broken system that, amazingly, could really be corrected quite simply with this term-limits proposal. The suggested 18 years is an adequate length of time for a judge to establish a proper judicial legacy, and it would eliminate these take-no-prisoners slugfests that have made the last few years so ugly.
Mark Diniakos, Thousand Oaks
To the editor: Law professor James Lindgren and sociologist Ross M. Stolzenberg suggest fixed terms for Supreme Court justices. Most Americans would suggest that when something has worked for more than 200 years, it doesn’t need anyone trying to fix it.
It would be better for the op-ed article writers to spend their time encouraging Democrats to stop trying to keep the president’s nominee to the court from being confirmed.
Donald Prell, Palm Springs
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.