This is a question that keeps coming up in scholarly circles. Would the Democratic process be better served if Supreme Court justices be subject to term limits? In the past 25 years the court has given advocates of term limits some very good reasons to implement term limits. Judge Scalia comes to mind as a good example of a judge that has become entrenched on the bench, unresponsive to the changing customs and desires of the American people.

With so many cases to read and endless study. A reasonable man could conclude that at some point Supreme Court judges can become susceptible to falling off the culture train at some point.

Hind sight is a beautiful thing. It allows us to go back and listen to Judge Scalia being questioned by then Senator Joseph Biden at Scalia’s confirmation hearing. In the video they mix it up a little, Biden implies Scalia is being a "wise guy" at one point.

Justice Scalia testified for two days from August 5-6 of 1986. They go into an interesting topic. The use of "original intent" when interpreting the meaning of the framers of the Constitution versus a "living document" interpretation. At his confirmation Scalia says after a Biden question on the subject " I don’t think you can regard me as a person who would use the word living constitution".

Justice Scalia goes on to say, " What I believe is the Constitution is not meant to be evolved so easily. That in effect, a court of 9 judges can treat it as though it’s a bring along with me statute. And fill it up with whatever content the current times require. To a large degree it is intended to be an insulation against the current times."

A recent decision by the Supreme Court magnifies the why judges should not serve life terms. Scalia has become more and more political during his tenure.

In Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission the Supreme Court of the United States went against stare decisis and opened the flood gates for corporate campaign finance expenditures. Scalia turned back a hundred years worth of legal history. In doing so, based on his own words "evolved the Constitution". And he did so to satisfy what "current political times require in the Republican party".

President Barack Obama said in his SOTU: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

I ran across this proposal for Supreme Court term limits. Here’s some of what they say. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part, "The Judges, both of the supreme and of the inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…." This phrase, "during good behavior," has been interpreted as giving federal judges a lifelong appointment to the bench, barring impeachment.

Now this concept of "term limits" is probably a little ahead of its time. Especially hard to discuss considering the current political climate. But it will need to be discussed eventually.

Judge Scalia obviously has evolved some of his philosophies since he was confirmed. That’s to be understood. I’m glad to see it. But those spikes if you will, in the evolving process could use some smoothing out.

Information and communication is moving faster and faster between countries. Society and the corporate world produce new developments by the hour. Isn’t it time that the Supreme Court caught up with the rest of us?

As far as the independent agency question later in the video. Who would have known that the Federal reserve would become in recent years a topic for debate over the subject?