I'm not for federal elections for judges. But am I for term limits? Oh yeah. And lifetime appointments are not in the Constitution.
@LiberalLibrarian I recommend that you go back and reread article 3 of the constitution of the United States. You’ll find that the justices of article 3 courts serve as long as they maintain good behavior. In other words, it is a lifetime appointment. In order to change this we have to change the constitution. I’m perfectly fine with amending the constitution so that we can have term limits. But that’s what it’s going to take.
@J_Windrow @LiberalLibrarian: Affirmative. Alas, "good behavior" is relative, usually relative to whomever control Congress. Also yes, the Constitution needs rather a few updates.
@J_Windrow @LiberalLibrarian There is some debate on the subject, but unfortunately I agree with you. The "good behavior" term is grounded in 18th century practice. It meant life tenure (barring impeachment and conviction). And it's embedded in Article III.
I, personally, don't see any way to change to limited terms without a constitutional amendment.
@RationalLeft @J_Windrow Well. To quote the comedian:
@LiberalLibrarian @J_Windrow Mind you, I *support* such an amendment. But there's no way Rs would ever allow it out of Congress or red states would ever ratify it when they have the control they craved.
@RationalLeft @LiberalLibrarian You know, the GOP might support such an amendment because it couldn't be applied to the people presently in office.
If, for instance, every judge to any article III court had to be replaced every 10 years (or whatever) there would be an enormous interest in elections among those who wanted to change the orientation of courts.
That said: if it is for SCOTUS (Art. 3) then it's for ALL Art. 3 judges. There are 870 of them. And the senate is overwhelmed now.
@J_Windrow @LiberalLibrarian An amendment could of course specify SCOTUS only.
*Maybe* Rs could be persuaded to see advantage in term limits grandfathered in... though they're so fixated on the "we own the court now" that I'm not sure the future really figures much in their "thinking."
@RationalLeft @LiberalLibrarian
That would be a heck of a change. It would require removing SCOTUS from the other Article III courts.
I'm not sure the Congress, as presently constituted, has enough brain cells between them to be able to do a successful modification like that.
After that, it could end up like the Equal Rights Amendment and not get ratified by enough states within the set time period.
If it happens it will be all or none on Art. III.
@J_Windrow @LiberalLibrarian It wouldn't be difficult to word an amendment to change the terms for SCOTUS justices only - Article III recognizes SCOTUS as a distinct entity already.
Getting it ratified (or indeed out of Congress in the first place) would be the real hurdle (and not, I think, a surmountable one at present).
@LiberalLibrarian Historically, appointment during "good behavior" meant a lifetime appointment. It was meant, ironically, to insulate judges from political interference.
There is some difference of opinion, but unfortunately I think term limits would require a constitutional amendment.