Should federal judges and justices continue to be appointed for life?

Answer 1

absolutely not. our justice system is one of the worst aspects of america. and having fed judges be appointed for life terms is another poop flake on the crap pile. sometimes i wonder if these same judges are mentally competent to even drive a car much less uphold our legal system.

Answer 2

Yes. We want our judges and justices to be making their decisions based up on law, not public opinion. If they were elected then they would feel the need to make the public happy even if their decision was against the current laws. Or if they were appointed by the current president each and every term we would have a judges that represent the current view of president, rather than a mix of views like we have now.

Answer 3

well in my opinion federal judges and justices should be appointed for a long time like 40 or 50 yrs because the they will gain experience and would have started to do there duty properly but they shouldn't be appointed for life because there is always younger person waiting for his turn. and there are more qualified people waitin in the line.

Answer 4

Absolutely. If you study the history of jurisprudence and politics in the United States, you'll see why. The "for life" appointment makes the judge largely independant of political pressure. And you see time and time again where that enables them to serve their function in our constitutional system--as a check on legeslative or executive abuses or excesses. And that applies to "conservative" as much as to "liberal" juudges. They each bring their own approach to the law--but overwhelmingly, they focus on the law--not on political passions or interests. Sometimes a justice will make a bad decision--that's why we have the extensive system of review and appeal . But making justices answerable to politicians will only guarantee subverting the legal process.

Answer 5

Oh heck no. Have you seen how many Federal judges are abusing their positions by trying to use their authority to make laws and set policy? That's NOT their function -- they are only supposed to interpret the law. What's worse, Federal judges let their own political ideals/affiliations bias their judgment. Did you know that the Federal judge in Detroit who declared Federal wiretapping under the Patriot Act as unconstitutional has ties to the ACLU? She needs to be kicked off the bench.

Answer 6

The idea behind appointment for life is sound, however what is seen as the downside of a life appointment is the judges ability to change his or her mind at any point in their career. They have nothing to fear from political shifts because they are not reelected.

Answer 7

Yes, it is the only way to keep them free from politics or trampling on the rights of minorities to please the majority. While it is distasteful at times, our founding fathers were correct in tolerating the occasional unpopular judge in exchange for avoiding the system they saw, a judiciary that sacrificed justice for the whims of a king.

Life tenure during good behavior has served us well for 224 years.

Answer 8

Yes. That is the only way to insulate the judiciary from the fickle winds of politics. We have to trust that the executive nominates and the senate only confirms reasonably well qualified persons, and then rely upon the ability to appeal truly egregious decisions.

Answer 9

I have my doubts. However, the real problem with the Judicial Branch is the lack of oversight by the Legislative Branch. If you study your Constitution, the legislature has a lot of authority to regulate the Courts. They never do though.

.

Answer 10

No, terms are good. Do not want people getting too much power and owing favors to one political party or another. This is the reason we have Bush as president; most people on the Supreme Court "owed" his father.