Federal Judges?

Question

1. Should they serve for life without any responsibility?
2. Should they serve terms and have to be appointed or elected after the first term expires?

The President can only serve two terms, so why should they serve for life?

I choose number 2.

Either way you should read about the following: Google the keywords if links do not work.

Federal Judge bald eagle
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15246226.htm

Federal Judge Katrina Flood insurnace
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/15/katrina/main1897823.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1897823
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/15/katrina/main1897823.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1897823

Federal Judge FEMA
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/13/katrina/main1311616.shtml

Either way you should write your congressman or woman and let them know how you feel.

mld4165

Answer 1

I like what some states do

on the ballot, they list the judges and you vote if they should stay or leave. if more people vote that they should leave than they should stay, they're gone. I think it would work better on a national level than on a state level, because hardly anyone knows who they are on a state level, and on a national level, it would really open up the possibility for more oversight and better public knowledge about what's happening in the judicial system.

Answer 2

It's the only way to have any hope of judicial autonomy.

Besides, that pesky Constitution again. Article III Section 1: "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The phrase "during good behaviour" means for life, until impeached, since impeachment is the only way to remove such officers once their appointments have been confirmed by the Senate. So, changing the model would require changing the Constitution.

The president serves for only two terms because of the 22nd Amendment. Prior to that there was no limit. Just as there is no limit for those elected to Congress.

Besides, if judges were subject to re-election, the Founders believed (many think rightly) that judges would be more subject to political pressures in their decisions, and less likely to follow the rules of law. Whether you agree with that idea or not, it's almost impossible to deny that state judges (who are elected) often make decisions on important cases based on political pressures.

The idea of an independent federal judiciary, as a last resort for abuses by either the states or the federal government itself, requires judicial independence. And requiring judges to be elected makes them nothing but politicians.

As to the cases above, read the facts. Read the actual court decisions, not just the news report. The Katrina case was because the texts of the policy explicitly excluded "damage caused by floods". That was the contract. The judge just read literally what the insurance contract said, asked the plaintiff if their home was damaged by flood, and when the plaintiff said yes that ended the debate. Are you upset that judges are refusing to ignore the written words of contract? Wouldn't that be activism.

As for the bald eagle case, the Fish and Wildlife Service has specific guidelines, objectively measurable, for what is an endangered species. Fish and Wildlife itself acknowledges that the species no longer meets those requirements, and that it should be removed from the endangered list. They're just dragging their heels to delay doing something that even they acknowledge they're legally required to do. What do you expect the judge to rule, that they can ignore their own rules?

The concept of an independent judiciary is that they can make people obey the rules, and don't have to be afraid for their jobs by doing that. We need more of that, not less.

Answer 3

What you proposal would requirement an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I seriously doubt you will get Congress to pass such an amendment, let along convince 75% of the states to vote for it.

Answer 4

No one in government should be allowed to serve without term limits. Supremecourt judges included. However, I disagree that they serve without responsibility.

Answer 5

#2