[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan wanted to know what it meant.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan wanted to know what it meant.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan wanted to know what it meant.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan wanted to know what it meant.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan wanted to know what it meant.

[Author]

Posts