Supreme Limits?

Peggy Noonan concludes her Miers take with a call for term limits for Supremes. I have no idea whether this would be a good idea or not. I think it might make it even more political than ever. Discuss.

LAGuy discusses: This Logan's Run solution is the equivalent of moving first base back ten feet to avoid all those close plays. Good justices should stay longer, bad justices should be gone immediately, but 1) that's not how the system is set up and 2) no one can agree on who's good and bad. The only thing term limits would do is create faster turnover and, perhaps, have people distrust the consistency of the law, especially when their faves are about to be kicked off.

In any case, it probably can't be done, at least not without a very unlikely to pass Constitutional amendment. While some have come up with fanciful ways of doing it (either drop Justices down a peg to the lower federal courts, or perhaps give them some honorary emeritus status), the Constitution clearly gives federal judges lifetime tenure, and denying this goes against the word and spirit of the document.

ColumbusGuy adds: How about we dicuss time stamps? What convention are we following here? I realize LAGuy has developed an unfortunate habit of albomizing, but I'm thinking we should sort some things out. LaGuy is at a natural disadvantage because he posts just after midnight PST, which means he gets bumped immediately if anyone posts later. If A2Guy is posting EST (and albomizing to boot), then he's locking up a top spot even if the rest of us post five times that day. Ought we not follow the same time zone, and post when we post?Put another way, Guys, is there method to our madness, or only madness to our method?

LAGuy replies: I don't think we should be airing our dirty linen in public. This is an issue that can be solved via personal emails. But since you bring it up, generally I operate on the principle that I'm putting out an early edition. I try to write a piece or two late in the day out here in the West and stamp it (sometimes EST) so it gets put in the next day's postings. That way, when our faithful readers wake up and check us out they won't feel like they're reading yesterday's news. (That's nothing. I remember I used to buy the Sunday New York Times on Friday.) Needless to stay, I'm not Albomizing inasmuch as I don't pretend to have seen something that has yet to happen. As to what AnnArborGuy is doing, you got me. I can see putting something on hold, saving it as a draft, and changing the time stamp to fit when it's released, but not changing the time stamp to keep something current after it's already out.

ColumbusGuy adds: This is only easier. I'm sufficiently disorganized that it's faster this way than to dig out both your emails.

And of course I'm not really accusing you of albomizing, any more than I'd accuse you of Krugmanizing or Ratherizing. Guys have more integrity than that.

Nonetheless, it remains the case that our posts will be most fresh, or rather, will vary throughout the day on the first page for our casual readers who aren't going to run the whole scroll, if we agree on a time zone and post when we post, with, I am happy to concede, the occasional exception as judgment calls for it. (To be clear, what LAGuy does generally, posting late but time stamping the next day makes perfect sense, for the reasons he gave, which were obvious enough.)