You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Revisiting the lifetime appointment of judges. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-03 12:53 PM
Original message
Revisiting the lifetime appointment of judges.
Advertisements [?]
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC