President Donald Trump said he's sending Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet with Saudi King Salman to discuss the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Turkish officials and others have alleged that Khashoggi, who sometimes criticized his government in columns for the Washington Post, was killed after he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 2.
"Just spoke to the King of Saudi Arabia who denies any knowledge of whatever may have happened "to our Saudi Arabian citizen." He said that they are working closely with Turkey to find answer. I am immediately sending our Secretary of State to meet with King!"
YASIN AKGUL/AFP/Getty Images
An official looks from inside the Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul, on October 12, 2018. - A Saudi delegation has arrived in Turkey for talks on missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi, officials said on October 12, with Riyadh and Ankara sharply at odds over how he disappeared last week from the kingdom's Istanbul consulate.
The Saudi government, which is effectively ruled by the king's son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been facing mounting pressure from Western nations—the U.S., Germany, France and the U.K—to answer for the strange disappearance.
"As the President has conveyed, the United States is concerned by his disappearance," Pompeo said in a statement last week. "State Department senior officials have spoken with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through diplomatic channels about this matter...We call on the government of Saudi Arabia to support a thorough investigation of Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance and to be transparent about the results of that investigation."
On Friday, a Saudi official announced the opening of an internal investigation into the case. But Turkish officials have accused the Saudi government of failing to cooperate with ongoing investigations, which include attempts to search the house of the consul general.
"We wanted to come in with all the chemicals and equipment investigators use to inspect crime scenes," a Turkish official said. "The Saudis said we could only get a brief tour."
Turkish officials, speaking anonymously, also claimed to have evidence showing Khashoggi was killed and dismembered by a team of 15 operatives dispatched from the Saudi capital Riyadh.
Emrah Yorulmaz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
ISTANBUL, TURKEY - OCTOBER 15: Flag of Saudi Arabia is seen at Saudi consulate as the waiting continues on the disappearance of Prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Consulate General of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul, Turkey on October 15, 2018. Khashoggi, a journalist and columnist for The Washington Post, has been missing since he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2.
Meanwhile, the Saudi economy has been taking blows. Facing the possibility of retaliatory U.S. sanctions, many Saudi stocks have plunged over the past two weeks, and some international businesses are placing deals on hold. Richard Branson, the billionaire founder of Virgin Galactic, had hoped to collaborate with the Saudi government to boost tourism in the region, and to accept a $1 billion investment into space tourism ventures, but said on Thursday that he might need to cancel those deals if the government had a hand in Khashoggi's death.
"What has reportedly happened in Turkey ... if proved true, would clearly change the ability of any of us in the West to do business with the Saudi government," Branson said in a statement.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been accused by multiple sources of using violence to silence critics and dissidents. Khaled bin Farhan al-Saud, a Saudi prince living in exile in Germany, told The Independent that several Saudi officials have disappeared in recent weeks after speaking out about the Khashoggi case.
"Over 30 times the Saudi authorities have told me to meet them in the Saudi embassy but I have refused every time. I know what can happen if I go into the embassy," he said, adding, "Around 10 days before Jamal went missing they asked my family to bring me to Cairo to give me a cheque. I refused."
Trump's response
In an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday, Trump promised "severe punishment" if it's shown the Saudi royals played a part in Khashoggi's disappearance.
"There's something really terrible and disgusting about that, if that was the case, so we're going to have to see," Trump said. "We're going to get to the bottom of it and there will be severe punishment."
He also suggested on Monday that perhaps "rogue killers" could have been responsible for the journalist's disappearance, but added "who knows." Without hard evidence showing the Saudis killed Khashoggi, or evidence proving the journalist is even dead, it's unclear how Pompeo will handle the meeting with the royals.
Kanye West met with President Donald Trump on Thursday for a meeting meant to cover topics surrounding urban revitalization, but West ended up delivering a freestyle rant on everything from North Korea to Superman.
Sporting his red 'Make America Great Again' hat and joined by reporters, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown, West delivered an impassioned and disjointed soliloquy on topics including North Korea, ending stop-and-frisk policies, prison reform, keeping jobs in the U.S., and how wearing a MAGA hat made the rapper feel "like superman."
A wild meeting in the Oval Office
US-PEOPLE-politics-RACE-TRUMP-KANYEUS President Donald Trump meets with rapper Kanye West in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, October 11, 2018. (Photo by SEBASTIAN SMITH / AFP) (Photo credit should read SEBASTIAN SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)"There was something about putting this hat on that made me feel like Superman," said West, who recently made headlines for delivering a similarly excited speech during a segment of Saturday Night Live that ultimately wasn't aired. "You made a Superman - that's my favorite superhero - you made a Superman cape for me."
The White House said West's meeting with the president, which also included a luncheon, was focused on topics like urban revitalization, workforce training, African-American unemployment and crime in Chicago. During the press briefing, West denied rumors that he's considering a 2020 presidential run, suggesting he'd only consider it after Trump's tenure.
"Let's stop worrying about the future, all we have is today," West said. "Trump is on his hero's journey right now. He might not have thought he'd have a crazy mother-f***r like me (supporting him)."
West has long drawn criticism from his fans and fellow artists for supporting Trump, an admiration that seems to stem partly from Trump's communication style, as West told a concert crowd in 2016:
"There's nonpolitical methods to speaking that I like, that I feel were very futuristic. And that style, and that method of communication, has proven that it can beat a politically correct way of communication."
In May, West caused some outrage when suggested "400 years" of African American slavery seemed like "a choice." He later apologized. Meanwhile, Trump has remained grateful for West's support.
"He can speak for me any time he wants, he's a smart cookie," said Trump, who seemed at times speechless between West's stream-of-consciousness remarks. "He gets it."
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Donald Trump scored his second nomination to the United States' highest court. During his term, Trump could potentially receive a third and fourth empty seat on the bench.
Since Supreme Court justices serve for life, such a turn of events would tilt the court toward conservative rulings for decades. Dreading such a future, Democrats have unleashed a salvo of criticisms at Trump's current SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. They have also called for reforms to set term limits for federal judges.
On his show Last Week Tonight, liberal-leaning comedian John Oliver argued that term limits are essential for democracy, as lifetime appointments come with a bevy of drawbacks. But it wasn't long ago that Republicans could be heard issuing similar clarion calls.
"I just think that people—whether they're in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch—shouldn't see their appointment to an office as permanent," Mike Huckabee told CNN during his 2015 run for the Republican nomination. "It would be that they have no accountability whatsoever."
If there is bipartisan agreement that term limits can be problematic, then why do Supreme Court justices have a lifetime appointment?
The why of lifetime appointments
A close up of the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS justices are granted a lifetime appointment under Article III, Section 1.
(Photo by Tetra Images/Getty Images)
The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically grant Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment. Instead, Article III, Section 1, states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. As long as federal judges don't commit a crime — and remember their pleases and thank yous — they keep their seat.
The phrase "during good Behavior" translates to a lifetime appointment because the Founders set no specific term or age limit for service. This means that the only actions that can remove a federal judge are death, resignation, or impeachment by Congress.
Most federal judges exit by way of death or resignation, with impeachment coming into play sparingly. Only 15 federal judges in U.S. history have ever been impeached and never a Supreme Court justice. Of the 113 justices to serve, only two have been faced with the threat of impeachment.
In 1804, the House impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, but he was not convicted by the Senate, and he continued to serve on the bench until his death in 1811. In 1969, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment. There have been other calls for impeachment, of course, but these two stories represent the farthest such actions have managed to hinder a justice's career.
For the record, justices serve on average for 16 years. However, when we only take into consideration justices from after the 1970s, the average jumps to 26 years. The longest-serving justice was William O. Douglas, who sat on the bench for 36 years, seven months, and eight days.
Reasons for a lifetime appointment
This conversation is uniquely American. No other major democracy grants federal judges lifetime tenure. Some have mandatory retirement ages, some set term limits, and some do both. But the Founding Fathers had very specific concerns they were trying to counter with such a far-reaching policy.
Returning to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1, also states that federal judges shall receive compensation and that compensation "shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." (As of Jan. 1, 2018, associate justices receive a salary of $255,300, and the chief justice receives $267,000.)
The reason the Founders set no term limits goes hand-in-hand with their prohibition on diminishing wages: Both serve to prevent the legislative and executive branches from manipulating the courts. The wording of Article III means that neither the president nor Congress can institute term limits or a pay cut, ensuring judges are secure in their job and beholden to neither branch's whims.
Alexander Hamilton made this argument overt in The Federalist Papers: No. 78. "If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices," Hamilton wrote, "since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."
These Constitutional freedoms should (in theory) put justices above politics and allow them to rule through a fair, unbiased interpretation of the law. Rising above partisan politics would also allow the Supreme Court to stand as a lawful, counter-majoritarian force that could protect the rights of the minority in the face of popular politics. (Again, in theory. There have been times when the Supreme Court has enshrined popular tyranny into law—looking your way, Dred Scott v. Sandford.)
When it comes to the idea of imposing term limits, some worry that such an act would set a precedent that allows the other branches of government to further shackle the court's power—effectively negating the checks and balances set by the Founding Fathers.
"Imagine if Congress all of a sudden thought […] that it should be regulating the Supreme Court on a much more aggressive basis," said Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, during a National Constitution Center debate on the subject. "I worry about a precedent where we start opening the door for Congress—especially this Congress—to flex its muscles, to use its power to try new ways to impose more and more constraints on the independence of the justices."
Should we set term limits on SCOTUS justices?
United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. Appointed by President Clinton, Justice Ginsburg continues to serve at 85 years old.
(Photo by Robin Marchant/Getty Images)
But others on all points of the political spectrum say these arguments, while well intended, don't balance out the downsides of lifetime appointments. Some even argue that such aspirations for apolitical judges are wishful thinking.
"It's impossible for a position like this not to have political ramifications," argued Alan Morrison, professor at George Washington University Law, during the aforementioned National Constitution Center debate. He added:
Given the content of the work that they do and the kinds of questions they have to answer, does anybody really think that justices call balls and strikes—when the question is whether due process has been violated [or] whether the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment? Obviously, these are political offices, but unlike other political offices, people stay for a very, very long time.
Others note that lifetime terms add a factor of randomness in determining the court's makeup, a decidedly undemocratic mechanism in our system. Writing for the Week, Matt Bruenig points out that Jimmy Carter nominated no Supreme Court justices, yet Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated five. Bill Clinton appointed two in his two terms, while George H.W. Bush appointed the same number in one.
"Filling up the court in such a random manner makes its overall political composition more random as well," writes Bruenig, "rather than a democratic reflection of the political trends of the country as a whole."
Finally, there is the question of age. When Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers, the average life expectancy in the Americas was about 35 years. Today, it is 77 years.
This means justices will serve much longer tenures on average than they did in the past. Such term lengths can prevent the bench from being updated to mirror social and culture progress. In the court's 228-year history, for example, only six of 113 justices have not been white men—two African-American men and four women.
Age also adds a political element to the bench. Justices will often choose to retire when a president is in office who echoes their political views, ensuring their seat continues to vote as they would.
"Justices have a conflicting set of obligations," Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, told the New York Times. "On the one hand, they have an obligation to serve their terms as long as they feel it's in the interest of the nation, and as long as they feel they can do the job well. But they have a conflicting desire, which is to perpetuate their view on the court. It's a political and personal judgement which they have to make for themselves."
Such worries extend to the justices themselves, who may hold onto their seats well beyond the point when their health fails them (as happened to Justice Thurgood Marshall). There is also the concern of what would happen if a justice developed dementia or lost other mental faculties.
Can anything be done?
Not much. The majority of Americans agree that term limits for federal judges should be enacted, but setting a such a limit would take an act of Congress.
Could both parties ultimately come to an agreement that such limits are beneficial? Maybe, but even if they did, it seems unlikely a situation would arise in which neither party felt such an act would not benefit one party over the other. Not to mention the bad blood from years of politicking to secure seats on the bench, such as the Merrick Garland incident.
The only real recourse the average American has is to vote for representatives that support their views, whether those views are for or against term limits.
