Once a year we throw open the doors of the faculty lounge and let the Law Talk audience ask questions of Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo. This year’s result: a conversation that touches on everything from acquiring Greenland to whether John Adams was a constitutional scofflaw, from whether federal courts have gotten too trigger happy with injunctions to which foods make the professors wretch. Most importantly: which class did Richard struggle with in law school? The answer will … not surprise you at all.
Subscribe to Law Talk in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Regarding the fixing of terms on the Supreme Court, I’m unalterably opposed to an arbitrary mandatory retirement age (for anything, not just the Supreme Court). I’m kind of disappointed in Richard Epstein’s fondness for arbitrary retirement ages (for anything, including academia, by the way).
I don’t have a problem with fixed terms. Regarding @miffedwhitemale‘s point about confirmation battles, that’s easily solved by having the clock ticking towards the term limit upon getting appointed and sworn in. I really don’t care about whether each presidential term gets a fixed number of justices to appoint. Pick a term limit and they all are entitled to serve it regardless of how it ends and whether one president gets more justices to appoint over another. It’s not “fair.” But I don’t care about being fair towards a particular president.
It’s significant that no state appoints its judiciary membership to lifetime terms. It’s time the federal government do the same.
Regarding John Yoo’s point about having older members of the court serve, he seems to be implying that fixed terms would preclude having older people on the court. But the present system encourages the appointment of younger justices starting out. Having fixed terms would take less pressure off of presidents to appoint younger members in the first place. They could start out older, presumably with some more time as a member of an appeals court (federal or state).
Thanks for calling me a superfan, guys! And thanks for answering my question.
Rufus, congrats on getting Prof. Epstein to agree with your suggestion about an 18-year SCOTUS term limit.
Honestly, I was just asking because this is not something I’m expert on. I just find Mark Levin incredibly compelling.
JMO, if you read everything recommended by Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, and Mises.org you would be way better off. I realize there are some contradictions in there, but it still holds true.
There isn’t a shred of value added from the tax code. It’s like some stupid crazy thing from medieval times. Politicians auctioning off tax brackets and deductions at gunpoint. GOSPLAN was a more sensible institution compared to our tax code.
It’s gym, right?