Proposed Consititutional amendment

[Ocotillo]

Change lifetime federal judicial court appointments to 10 years rather than life.

Senate approval to be by two thirds majority rather than simple majority.

Judges could be reappointed if they meet with senate approval.

Benefits:

Fewer octogenarians on the bench clinging to their seat until a like minded individual is elected president.

Kind of a term limits for judges, the new blood theory.

Super majority requirement keeps divisive extremists of both wings off the bench.

More pragmatists, less idealogues.

Discuss.

[spurschick]

I like it

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't like it at all, because it interferes with the separation of powers idea and makes the judiciary a clearly political branch. It makes federal judges accountable to Congress, which could, in theory, direct two branches at the same time. The single reason that the Founders made the judiciary the sole non-political branch was their belief that judges should be immune from the pressures of politics in order to remain independent.

You might not like the decisions that judges make, but Congress has the power to enact legislation that counters those decisions and submit that legislation to subsequent review by the courts.

Congress also possesses, at least in part, the ultimate Kings X, in that it has the singular ability to pass Constitutional amendments and submit them to the states for ratification. As it stands right now, Congress can undo court decisions that are disfavored by the majority. There is a perfect example of that in process right now: Senator Cornyn (of Texas) has proposed a bill that would prohibit state and local governments from seizing land from private citizens for the sole purpose of increasing tax appraisals. Sen. Cornyn's bill is aimed directly at the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. Cornyn has done precisely what legislators should do when they or their constituents disagree with the rulings of the Court. If there truly is popular support to undo what the justices did in any case, the statute will pass.

The system works.

[jochhejaam]

Change lifetime federal judicial court appointments to 10 years rather than life.

Senate approval to be by two thirds majority rather than simple majority.

Judges could be reappointed if they meet with senate approval.

Benefits:

Fewer octogenarians on the bench clinging to their seat until a like minded individual is elected president.

Kind of a term limits for judges, the new blood theory.

Super majority requirement keeps divisive extremists of both wings off the bench.

More pragmatists, less idealogues.

Discuss.

I like the way it's set up now. A simple majority and no term limit. We don't always get what we expect with the nominations. Some appointed by conservative Presidents have turned out to be quite liberal. \
O'Connor was appointed by Reagan and leans to the left.
Kennedy appointed by Reagan and can be Centrist or liberal.
Souter appointed by Bush and is liberal.


Age/Tenure hasn't proven to be a detriment to the Justices.

[ObiwanGinobili]

I don't know.... I kinda like how stable the federal judiciary is.
everyother part of our gov. (leg and exec) are in constant upheavel all the dang time.
atleast 1/2 of a senators, rep's or presidents term is spent on reelection campiagning and greasing. it seems no sooner are people actually gettign down to some usefull buisness before we got all new folks in there.
JMO

[SWC Bonfire]

Would never happen. Too much of a loss of judicial power, and a checks/balances of the goverment would be tilted towards the executive legislative branches.

[Ocotillo]

Interesting comments.

FWD, you're an attorney are you not?

I thought by putting the terms at 10 years rather than 2, 4 or 6 you would in theory get out of the cycle of the executive and legislative branch.

[FromWayDowntown]

Interesting comments.

FWD, you're an attorney are you not?

I thought by putting the terms at 10 years rather than 2, 4 or 6 you would in theory get out of the cycle of the executive and legislative branch.

It makes the cycles different, in theory, but that doesn't change the fact that the judiciary would become beholden to the Legislative branch, regardless of who fills the positions available in the Legislative branch. It would seriously undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Here's a single example: Judge A is up for "review" or "reapproval." A controversial federal law is before the Court (be it a district court, circuit court, or the Supreme Court) in a high profile case. Judge A is called upon to assess the constitutionality of some provision of the law. Let's presuppose that the law pretty clearly violates a constitutional determination made by the Supreme Court (for instance, a law that makes it illegal to burn the American flag). Now, is Judge A, knowing that he or she is going to be subject to review in the coming year, going to be influenced or feel some implicit pressure to uphold the law in an effort to keep his or her job? If the answer is even possibly yes, the proposed amendment would seriously infringe upon the independence of the judiciary.

If you want to subject Article III judges to some sort of review, you would have to make it by some sort of popular election process, but that would be an unwieldy process, to say the very least.

[violentkitten]

it seems like people have problems with the constitution when they are on the losing end politically.

[Ocotillo]

Yeah, I see what your point is.

Regarding electing judges I have always had the willys about that. In Texas that is how state and local judges are done but it really politicizes the bench and of course there is the issue of taking campaign money from attorneys or even potential defendents that could come before the court.

[spurster]

Those are not bad ideas. The appointments are already very political. Unless a judge was interested in lifetime and near the end of a term, the decisions would be reasonably separate from politics.

The problem now is that impeachment is the only way to hold judges accountable, so you have judges who are extreme right or left without any way to make them consider anything but their extreme theories. Something less drastic than impeachment would be good to have.

Unfortunately, the Congress is not about good ideas, but flag burning, prayer in schools, gay marriage get top billing.