Revisiting the lifetime appointment of judges.

[SoCalDem]

When the lifetime appointment of judges as a "formal plan" came into being, people did not live as long as we currently do.. People were often in poor health for most of their "golden years", so they often retired early.. That is not the case now..

If you consider the fact that a person would not even be "lifetime-judge-material", they would have HAD to be at least well into their 40's, so they might have only served 10 years or so anyway..

In modern times, a person in their late 40's "could" serve for TWO GENERATIONS.. I do not think that our founding fathers ever expected appointed judges to serve much beyond 10-15 years at the most.. There would always be the "Franklinesque" people who would be vital, well into their 70's & 80's, buit TODAY, that seems to be the norm, not the exception..

This whole issue reminds me so much of the literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible.. Perhaps we need a modern day interpretation of just what lifetime means/should mean..

It is obscene to me that a one term president "might" be able to appoint hundreds of judges and perhaps even 3 or 4 supreme court judges , whose philosophy could influence and possibly, control so many important things for FORTY FIVE years...

At least when senators get up there in years, they still have to stand for election, so if they get too old (barring Strom & Jesse) , their antiquated ideas and ideals are often replaced with younger ones.

This whole nasty little exercise in un-upsmanship could be avoided, buy just changiing the way the judges terms are served.. Why not just amend the lifetime part to read....: minimum age when elected 50 yrs of age, and just make them a maximum "term" of 10 years guaranteed (barring criminal/impeachable acts), and a re confirmation hgearing at the 11th year.. That would avoid the over reach that we have now, and it would certainly temper the rhetoric..

Judges "used to be" apolitical, but modern day judgeships are VERY political, so the whole system is broken.. Both sides should embrace a change.. The way it works now is not good for anyone.

[Instant Karma]

1. This is true but before one changes that we might perhaps take a look

at the negative effect term limits have had elsewhere in our system. One could make a bigger difference in judicial behavior simply by eliminating all honoraria. The Federalist society has imprinted their mark on the law through the financing of trips for judges to seminars in places such as Hawaii where they then are able to both cajole the judges through what amounts to legalized bribery and use hypothetical case studies to alter the opinions of judges on cases before them.

[asjr]

2. judges

When we get judges like Scalia a lifetime seems a lifetime. It shows we must vet them thoroughly.

[SoCalDem]

3. My plan would not be a term limit, per se

just a re confrimation after 10 years.. If they had been a moderate judge, they would have no problem..

I agreee.. pay them well and NO honoraria EVER.. In fact, if they did associate themselves with any political activities, that should be grounds for immediate removal..

[newyawker99]

4. Hi InstantKarma!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: