Based on yesterday’s column, I’m curious to see how people would change the requirements of federal judges if they had the power to do so.
I have been saying (for quite some time now) that there should be term limits for federal judges. But set up in a way that does not weight the court too much to recent history. For the Supreme Court, I was thinking something like 18 year jobs, one being replaced every 2 years. It would take five presidencies in a row (of the same party) to “stack” the court completely. But, in thinking it over a bit more, that also means that three presidencies in a row could change the majority.
I now wonder if there should be a clause that the two major parties each get four judges, with the ninth position going to a third party. Could be interesting.
What about getting rid of the senile? Any clause such as the 25th amendment for judges (and congresscritters, while we’re at it).
What say you all?
Modify the process slightly, and what we have works. Holmes well into his 80s was still producing brilliant opinions. Stevens at 85 still seems sharp as they come.
The problem is that the Senate is understandably loath to impeach a man who has given years or decades of good service and is now going senile or has tragically suffered a stroke. So, my proposition:
Instead of the “try to get him to quit” procedure now in place, the other members of a given court (Supreme, Nth Circuit, District) come to a consensus that Justice McElder is no longer capable of sitting on cases. They formally sign off on this, and the Chief Judge transmits it in writing to the Secretary of the Senate, copies to the VP, Pres Pro Tem, Majority and Minority Leaders, and Chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee. The latter committee then reviews the evidence submitted with the judges’ affidavit, reviews any further evidence they choose, including they or a delegation of them meeting with Justice McElder if they see fit (and any other interested Senator having the right to sit in and voice but no vote in their deliberations), and then recommend to the Senate that Justice McElder be involuntarily retired honorably for the good of the nation. A 2/3 majority is required to overturn that recommendation.
If a judge doesn’t agree with the reading that the President, or Congress, puts on a constitutional clause, or how the law should apply to someone in public obloquy, that’s just too damn bad. That’s their job – to rule fairly in accordance with the law, not reacting to public whim as the “political departments” are.
Polycarp - I like your underlying idea, but I fear political motivations might lead a group of judges to come to a consensus that a fellow judge is “no longer capable of sitting on cases.” Obviously you have placed procedural safeguards in there to quash bogus claims, but they don’t stop the process from occurring.
I’m not really in favor of anything that might stir the political side of judges. I don’t want them ever thinking about politics - I want them thinking about precedent, constitutional provisions, and fairness. If I had my way, I would strip them of their right to vote, not let them donate to political parties, and take away all their freedom of speech rights outside of the court. 
To me, it’s depressing as all hell that legislators from both sides don’t fight more than they do over judicial appointments. I think that could go a long way towards judges that are generally mainstream and apolitical.