- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Should federal judges have life tenure (service until death or resignation)?
A. Supreme Court and lower court justices should have life tenure.
B. Supreme Court justices should have life tenure; lower court justices should have fixed lengths to their terms.
C. Supreme Court justices should have fixed lengths to their terms; lower court justices should have life tenure.
D. Supreme Court and lower court justices should have fixed lengths to their terms.
My choice is A, although I would be open, after much consideration, to B. I would not accept C or B under any circumstances.
No I don’t think anyone should have Life Tenure it gives them too much power and power can be very dangerous. Everyone should know that if they don’t do their job appropriately or if they let their personal preference or bias get in the way of the laws and rules governing their job obligations then they can lose their job. Everyone needs to work under the cloud of being dispensable so they are always on their toes and are less vulnerable to corruption and ego. If the President can be impeached and a King can be dethroned there is no reason that a judge should have life tenure.
So maybe the best thing should be a system of review and reappointment.
The problem with judges having terms is that judges are supposed to be above politics. They are supposed to interpret the law according to the constitution, without politics getting involved. If they had terms, then obviously politics would play a role in their decisions.
The problem now is that sadly, judges forgot that fact. They try to impose their own views on things all the time, instead of just following the constitution. What we really need is a way to take action against a judge who does not do what they’re supposed to.
Perhaps we can go back to the old system where the head of the government (such as Barack Obama or Andrew Cuomo) can fire all the judges and appoint ones who won’t mess up his policies. The Brits had that system for years. It worked fine (assuming your goal is a government than can act without being restricted by the judiciary). Think was “progressive” legislation could pass if the they weren’t restrained by fears of it being declared unconstitutional. Life tenure clearly results in judges who feel no obligation to do what the elected leaders want them to.
How about a law arresting people who object to Obamacare for obstruction of national policies? Let’s round up the Tea Party for interfing with efforts to reduce the deficit by revenue enhancement.
There’s a reason the constitution requires life tenure. The founding fathers were very clever and didn’t want the British system of judges who serve at the whim of politicians. That’s why they insisted that impeachment was limited to “high crimes”, not judicial misconduct or political incorrectness.
The problem is that these thugs in robes legislate from the bench and declare the law what they would like it to be, rather than interpert the law as it is written, as they should.
There always has to be a checks and balance system and whatever has to be implemented to keep judges in check is what should be done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.