Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has endorsed term limits for Supreme Court justices following a series of ethics revelations about members of the high court.
Pelosi in an interview released on Sunday told MSNBC host Jen Psaki Supreme Court justices “have the opportunity to write some ethics rules for themselves,” but she lauded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who has been one of the most vocal Democratic critics of the Supreme Court.
“It’s shameful how Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have been so cavalier about their violations and what would be expected of a justice of the Supreme Court. Here we have a body, chosen for life, never have to run for office, nominated, confirmed for life with no accountability for their ethics behavior,” Pelosi said.
“Thirty percent seems high,” Pelosi said, referencing a recent poll from Quinnipiac University that showed approval of the court has dropped to 30%.
The process of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices is complicated. It would require a constitutional amendment, or Congress could pass legislation requiring justices to retire, take “senior” status with lesser duties or move to an appeals court.
Will Donald Trump debate his GOP rivals?Republicans are trying to pressure him into it
Pelosi’s comments come after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito last week acknowledged that he flew to Alaska for a fishing trip on a private jet in 2008 that belonged to a hedge fund manager who brought cases before the Supreme Court.
Reporting about Alito comes after a series of stories in ProPublica earlier this year that revealed private jet trips and yacht travel that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from GOP donor Harlan Crow. Crow also purchased property from Thomas and his family, none of which was reported on disclosure forms.
Chief Justice John Roberts last month said he’s committed to ensuring the “highest standards of conduct” at the Supreme Court.
"We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment,” Roberts said at an American Law Institute dinner.
Oh please Nacy! If you do this I swear I’ll look the other way on your insider trading. I won’t even mention your insider trading again. I won’t go as far as to defend your insider trading but I will stop mentioning it.
Just make sure to let people know you aren’t mentioning her insider trading anymore so they know you won’t be telling them about her insider trading.
Wait, who’s insider trading? Surely not Nancy. Please don’t tell me that Nancy isn’t insider trading.
Nancy Pelosi has been a representative since 1987, predating Clarence Thomas (current longest serving justice) by four years (1991). All other justices started in the 21st century at least, and 4/9 within the past 10 years.
“Rules for thee but not for me” just as Nancy Pelosi has consistently demonstrated regarding insider trading, metal detector security, and COVID-19 lockdowns.
It’s crucial to remember that Supreme Court justices and representatives such as Nancy Pelosi have fundamentally different methods of appointment and tenure lengths. Representatives like Pelosi are directly elected by the public and serve two-year terms, and they must campaign for re-election at the end of each term. In contrast, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and then serve lifetime appointments. Therefore, equating their service durations doesn’t offer a fully analogous comparison.
You’ve raised separate issues about Pelosi’s behavior, which may warrant discussion in another context. However, they do not directly address the point about the length of service.
Supreme Court justices don’t have to campaign every few years for election because they’re not intended to be appointed by the people. The USSC is designed to interpret the law, not cater to the people. It isn’t allowed to answer political questions. Supreme Court justices could also, theoretically, be impeached, so they do have to maintain at least some standards. The USSC is designed to move slowly because otherwise there’s no consistency in legal interpretation (or at least even less than there is now).
That is all correct. I wasn’t trying to imply that they should be voted on by the public. I was trying to say that comparing the two’s time in office doesn’t really work because one may be forced to leave every two years without committing any serious crime and the other can serve until they die if they want. It seems that is the issue that Pelosi is addressing.
I can see your point. My issue with what Pelosi is saying is that it boils down to, “these people have served their role too long” in my opinion; that is, the duration of the allowed term (lifetime, in both cases) is the sole issue. For her to say that someone shouldn’t serve a governmental role for decades would be hypocrisy.
I’m not a pelosi fan, but see was elected. Just saying. She still sucks though.
The way I see it is that if justices will keep ruling according to their respective party lines, might as well have some rotating seats, to maintain more balance.
