Term limits for federal judges

[bluestateguy]

12 years, one term and you are done.

Al current federal judges are grandfathered in under the old system of lifetime tenure.

This preserves judicial independence, while also allowing for some rotation in office that will be more reflective of public opinion in a responsible way.

[LostinVA]

1. I agree with you completely

Except MAYBE I'll put it to one ten-year term, with an optional reappointment for seven years. But that's it. This "judges until death" thing is not the way to go. IMHO, anyway....

[Xithras]

2. Technically, judges aren't SUPPOSED to be reflective of public opinion.

One of the worst things that's happened to the judiciary is this effort to turn them into politicians over the past few decades.

The job of a judge is to factually weigh evidence and compare it to the law, as written. Public opinion shouldn't even be a factor.

[William769]

3. Never gonna happen.

[maine_raptor]

4. Bad Idea

If you had judges serve only 12 years and then out, it would mean there would be a need for more judges. Where do judges come from?

Lawyers!!!!!!!!!!

AND THERE ARE ENOUGH DAMN LAWYERS IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!:grr:

IMHO, Shakespeare was right!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. Shakespeare WAS right

But you're forgetting the context.

The line you refer to, I assume, was "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." You appear to think that the character saying it was talking about his plans after some sort of revolution, and that lawyers would be first against the wall. But that's not it at all.

Read that section again. The character is actually talking about how to bring about the changes he wants -- lawyers are the best bastion against government abuse, so in order to gain power, the attorneys who could stop you would need to go.

Everyone hates lawyers in general, but for some reason everyone loves their own lawyer. Go fig.

Peace.

[Caution]

5. little thing called the Constitution in the way of that.

not going to happen. ever.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Couldn't disagree more

Judges should NOT be "reflective of public opinion". They should interpret and apply the law. One of the key features of the Constitution is that it protects the rights of individuals even when protecting those rights are not what most of the public would want if given a vote. Brown v. Board of education was not reflective of public opinion; refusing to allow religious icons in courtrooms is not reflective of public opinion; most if not all curbs on the death penalty are not reflective of public opinion. The whole idea of life tenure for judges is that they aren't beholden to public opinion or political pressure in making their decisions.

[papau]

8. I believe Roberts rejected that idea.

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/

Must the Court bless smut and other such vices?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


May a President jail any and all in a crisis?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will the Court defer or will it despise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Is privacy protected in all shapes and sizes?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Are your views like Bob Bork’s or more like Brandeis’?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will you ever say anything at all to surprise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Do you still favor term limits—a time when you’ll go??

No.

[Zynx]

9. Are judges supposed to be reflective of public opinion?

I know you said in a responsible way, but part of what I like about the judicial system is that it transcends temporary periods in which public opinion may swing between extremes.