The latest poll shows 70 percent of Republicans support a binding code of conduct for justices that would require disclosure of gifts, prohibit involvement in political activity, and mandate recusal from cases involving conflicts of interest for themselves or their spouses.

Slimmer majorities of Republicans support the constitutional amendment proposal (54 percent) and the term limits proposal (51 percent).

Total support among respondents for the code of conduct is 76 percent, including 89 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents.

For the constitutional amendment, overall support is at 70 percent, with 89 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents supporting the reform.

For term limits, 63 percent of total respondents support the reform, including 83 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents.

When respondents were asked whether they support the reforms, they were not told Biden proposed them.

Robert Sanders 1 wrote:

The SCOTUS lifetime appointment was so they'd be free of political influence. We see how that has(n't) worked.

I support a mandatory retirement age, though. What age? Should be based on when they can no longer do the job.

MACS wrote:

The SCOTUS lifetime appointment was so they'd be free of political influence. We see how that has(n't) worked.

I support a mandatory retirement age, though. What age? Should be based on when they can no longer do the job.

MACS wrote:

Problems abound both in Congressional or any other elected office term limits as well as mandatory retirement ages.

Why shouldn’t the people who elect a particular person be the sole group responsible for term limiting said individual. If a particular group of constituents are happy with their representation why should they be forced to be elect someone different? Arbitrary limits take that choice away from the people being represented and gives it to a much larger and disinterested group.

Mandatory retirement ages are a sham as well. Some people are perfectly capable of performing their job well into their 70’s and even their 80’s. Hell, Warren Buffet is 93 and he’s still actively involved in running Berkshire Hathaway. Then there are those who are incompetent in their 30’s and 40’s.

Abrignac wrote:

Vote them out has been proven to not work... with unopposed candidates and redistricting to ensure single party dominance just 2 of the factors.

The Majority of Americans are in favor of term limits for Congress.

drglnc wrote:

i don't know if i support term limits for SCOTUS or not... I would support a Mandatory Retirement age though.

i 100% support term limits for all elected federal positions though...

drglnc wrote:

I would like to see a binding code of conduct at a minimum. As far as term limits I am undecided, there would be good and bad to that. As far as age limits, my only question would be this, at what age do the majority of Americans go into mental decline. This is the age I would choose. I do not want people incapable of making good decisions deciding our future.

Robert Sanders 1 wrote:

The SCOTUS from its very beginning has never been immune to political influence.
What irks the LEFTIES is when a majority of judges are conservative or unreliable moderates who can't be counted on to do their bidding.
What they actually want is a permanent progressive majority that will disregard the constitutional limits of the other branches and legislate from the bench.
Term limits would do nothing but make the court more political. Right now the retirement age is mostly based on whether the judge has a pulse and we've seen how political it gets nominating new candidates depending on which party is in power.
Imagine going through that process of appointing political nominees to the court much more often. with term limits. Not good.

RayR wrote:

You're absolutely 100% wide awake on the argument.
Excellent commentary to expose the agenda

MaduroJorge wrote: