One comment on checks and balances...which I firmly believe is at the beadrock of our governmental system.
The process for selecting federal judges has served us well.....the only change I might be open to considering is lifetime appointments (although the Constitution does not say lifetime...it says as long as they demonstrate good behavior).
I would be open to hearings on a proposed Constitutional amendment that would not change the judicial appointment process, but would term limit judges...perhaps 12-15 years, to extend over several administrations.
Norm Ornstein makes an interesting case.
Quote:
Whoa, you say. Lifetime appointments insulate the judicial branch from political influence, don't they? Not anymore. Is there anything more political than the Senate's unceasing battles over these nominations? Meanwhile, the nominees themselves have become politicized by the battles -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will always remain bitter over how the Senate treated him during his confirmation hearings. It's been 17 years since Senate Democrats blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and the ideological wars over the judiciary began in earnest. If the Senate can't figure out how to reach a truce in its battles over these all-important jobs, maybe the best solution is to make the jobs not quite so important.
A 15-year term would still provide insulation from political pressure; that tenure is seven years longer than any president can serve. It would allow plenty of time for a judge or justice to make a substantial contribution while diluting the efforts of any president to project his views onto future generations. ..
|
I dont know that I would support it, but I think its worthy of discussion in Congress.