So what do we do now? Appointed for life Judges have usurped the authority of all elected officials as well as the Constitution it's self. Are you suggesting that we bow to judicial tyranny and be ruled by what they say the Constitution says, even though we know damn well that it says no such thing?
Yes that's the problem. And the
best proposal I have read on this
issue is found here:
NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Ward Farnsworth is Professor of Law and Class of 1960 Scholar at the Boston University School of Law.
Ornstein: 2/7/05
...the bitterness in Washington over judicial appointments
...got me thinking about rethinking lifetime appointments. And the more I thought about them, the more I saw merit in change—in moving federal judgeships, at least at the appeals court and Supreme Court level, to single 15 year terms.
The fact is that lifetime tenure has created a powerful temptation to presidents to pick young ideologues, who can change the balance on the bench and leverage that president's impact for many decades after he leaves office. Lifetime tenure thereby ratchets up the stakes of each appointment, giving opposition parties more incentive to block as many presidential nominees as possible, whatever their ideology, to leave more lifetime slots for a future president of their own party. If 15-year terms were staggered over time for Supreme Court positions, it would take away the variability that allows some presidents to fill several vacancies in one term, while other occupants of the Oval Office can go two terms without filling any.
I've read other suggestions that 18 or 20 year limits in
federal judicial offices would be beneficial to the nation.