Terms for the Supreme Court?

No one ever said democracy was perfect. Winston Churchill even remarked once that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest."

One thing I have never understood about our Constitution is the insistence the Founding Fathers put on life time appointments in the Supreme Court.

The President serves two four year terms and he/she/it has to win an election to get to the White House. Senators and Representative have to face the voters and explain what they have done. Not a perfect system and, in my opinion, not nearly enough turn over, but the accountability is there. Theoretically anyway.

Not so with the Supreme Court.

Not only are they beyond recall or public pressure but they quite often do not know what they are doing. Not "seemingly", not "occasionally" but quite often do not seem to know their right hand from their left. I think ten year appointments are not asking too much.

Yes, I know. The current set up was devised to keep legal decisions free from pressure but maybe if the justices were accountable for some of the moronic decisions they have made, they just might think a little more.

Looking for examples?

Dred Scott decision. Remember that one? The one that ignored the rights of enslaved people in a DEMOCRACY and started the countdown to the Civil War?

Plessy v. Ferguson. The decision that made segregation legal and virtually ignored the deaths of over a million Americans in 1861-1865.

Over the last generation, the Supreme Court seems to think it is also a legislature and began embarking on adventures in judicial activism.

Many point out that it was the Court's activism that ended segregation but remember, it was the Supreme Court that legalized it and upheld slavery in the first place. It was only right and proper the justices undo the mess their predecessors created
.

Lately the decisions seem hostile to democracy itself...State supported discrimination seems back in vogue with Gratz v Bollinger and our property rights are under siege not from federal authorities but local land developers who are friends with whatever city council is nearby thanks to Kelso v New London. And lets not forget the recent decision to allow corporations, even foreign ones, to donate as much as they like in an election while American citizens are limited to $2500 each.

When you note David Souter's actions on the bench against his words at his confirmation and the obvious lack of qualification of Sonya Sotomayor combined with the quasi fascistic leanings of the late William Rhenquist, any kind of limit seems like a good start.

Not to mention some sort of common sense test.

Good luck with getting anyone in DC to pass that...