Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Sunday that he would back age limits for justices, claiming the controversial policy would have helped his own decision-making about his retirement in 2022.
“I don’t think that’s harmful,” he said of Supreme Court terms in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview with Kristen Welker on Sunday. “If you had long terms, for example, they’d have to be long. Why long? Because I don’t think you want someone who’s appointed to the Supreme Court to be thinking about his next job.”
“And so, a 20-year term? I don’t know, 18? Long term? Fine. Fine,” he said. “I don’t think that would be harmful. I think it would have helped, in my case. It would have avoided, for me, going through difficult decisions when you retire. What’s the right time? And so, that would be okay.”
My grandpa is a classical everything-phobic NRA republican, but he has one idea that has elements I kinda like. He thinks the president should be chosen at random from among voting age adults, and that when they’re done with their term they should be paid handsomely by the government and be barred from lobbying jobs for life. I’d be terrified of the kinds of people that could hand executive orders and nuclear launch codes to, but i agree with you and him that retiring politicians shouldn’t be allowed to pivot straight into lobbying and other private sector sources of political influence. I kinda think the ban should be longer than five years, if not for life, but idk there could be some good in lifting it after a time that I’m not thinking of