In Canada the mandatory retirement age for federally appointed judges is 75; some provinces have it at 70. That, more than anything, takes any politics out of retirements, especially for the Supreme Court - not that our processes are anywhere nearly as fraught with politics as they are in the US, except for matters of provincial representation and bilingualism on the Supreme Court.
As for the retiring justice's expertise, that does not have to be lost. Those still capable of contributing and willing to do so usually do that in other ways, such as head commissions of inquiry (Willard Estey) or, like Louise Arbour, conduct a review of sexual harassment in the Canadian military; work internationally (a retired Supreme Court judge, Peter Cory, headed the investigation of allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland); or teach (Rosalie Abella).
The only persuasive argument in favor of term limits is that they would remove the incentive to nominate the youngest candidates possible, in the hopes they will deliver ideologically desirable opinions fir many, many years. We are better off with a system where being appointed a judge or justice is the capstone to a long, successful career at the bar or in public service or in legal academia. I’m doubtful that’s enough to compensate for the loss of judicial independence.
In a more recent episode of Professor Amar's podcast (which I highly recommend), he goes through Judge Wilkinson's op-ed, point by point. Like Amar, I'm a big fan of Judge Wilkinson, but I find the case for term limits—or "so-called term limits" (listen to the podcast for an explanation of the "so-called" part)—to be more persuasive.
I don't think we need to end life tenure. One way to alleviate the issue of strategic retirements would be to allow the President to appoint a judge's "replacement" as soon as that judge is eligible for senior status. That way, the judge can still remain active on the court as long as he/she wishes, and it becomes more difficult to game retirements for partisan reasons.
In Canada the mandatory retirement age for federally appointed judges is 75; some provinces have it at 70. That, more than anything, takes any politics out of retirements, especially for the Supreme Court - not that our processes are anywhere nearly as fraught with politics as they are in the US, except for matters of provincial representation and bilingualism on the Supreme Court.
As for the retiring justice's expertise, that does not have to be lost. Those still capable of contributing and willing to do so usually do that in other ways, such as head commissions of inquiry (Willard Estey) or, like Louise Arbour, conduct a review of sexual harassment in the Canadian military; work internationally (a retired Supreme Court judge, Peter Cory, headed the investigation of allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland); or teach (Rosalie Abella).
The only persuasive argument in favor of term limits is that they would remove the incentive to nominate the youngest candidates possible, in the hopes they will deliver ideologically desirable opinions fir many, many years. We are better off with a system where being appointed a judge or justice is the capstone to a long, successful career at the bar or in public service or in legal academia. I’m doubtful that’s enough to compensate for the loss of judicial independence.
Yes
Okay, time to read the article.
In a more recent episode of Professor Amar's podcast (which I highly recommend), he goes through Judge Wilkinson's op-ed, point by point. Like Amar, I'm a big fan of Judge Wilkinson, but I find the case for term limits—or "so-called term limits" (listen to the podcast for an explanation of the "so-called" part)—to be more persuasive.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/errors-of-commission/id1549624070?i=1000539131880
I don't think we need to end life tenure. One way to alleviate the issue of strategic retirements would be to allow the President to appoint a judge's "replacement" as soon as that judge is eligible for senior status. That way, the judge can still remain active on the court as long as he/she wishes, and it becomes more difficult to game retirements for partisan reasons.