Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Confidence in Judges Is in the Gutter and We Need Term Limits To Fix It

Lifetime appointments are a bad idea.

A little more than three years ago, Gallup released the results of an important poll which went largely under-reported and unnoticed. It indicated that Americans’ confidence in federal judges had hit an all-time low, with only 53 percent of respondents indicating they had a fair amount of trust or more in them. It’s hard to imagine that recent events have bolstered that statistic.

In comparison, 55 percent to 60 percent of American colonists were likely either neutral or supportive of the British crown on July 4, 1776, when the Founders signed The Declaration of Independence. So, it appears that today’s federal judges enjoy about the same amount of popular support in America as King George III did at the time of the Revolution.

Further, when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, thereby giving federal judges their lifetime appointments (at least during times of “good behaviour”), the average life expectancy in our newfound republic may only have been 36 (and some may also argue that, for obvious reasons, any tyrant occupying a lifetime position in public office back then quite possibly could have expected to live nowhere near that long). In contrast, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will turn 86 next month.

But more important still, the lifetime appointment system simply hasn’t been working out. Perhaps it’s just human nature: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, it’s not exactly surprising that abuse of the lifetime appointment system, which by design all but absolves federal judges of personal responsibility for their actions both on and off the bench, seems far more common today than the supposed benefit to justify that system’s existence. The argument is that judges need protection from the capricious whims of politics and popular opinion in order to make unpopular yet legally — and morally-correct decisions.

Indeed, this insulation did not lead the U.S. Supreme Court to issue such a forward-looking ruling in favor of Dred Scott, the escaped s***e who was ordered back into servitude after what is widely described as the worst decision in the highest court’s history. Nor does it seem to have led to the upholding today of the very simple, plain and obvious wording of the Second Amendment and the remainder of The Bill of Rights.

https://www.westernjournal.com/confidence-judges-gutter-need-term-limits-fix/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation

Liberty Tree

The percentage of federal judges who actually go bythe constitution is deceasing rapidly. That is why liberals can judge shop to find one who will advance their agenda.

eden

Both sides do this.

bobebgtime Loc: Virginia

I agree. I would like to see along w/ the judges, Congress and the house also be limited to terms. regrettably the only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians.

woodguru

The thing that is most needed is centrist guidelines, a proven history of centrist rulings that adhered to the center of the law.

A supreme court with centrist judges would almost always have majority rulings that clearly do not follow party lines except where the party line is in line with the constitution.

Confidence is in the gutter and it is because the courts are being packed with hard right judges

TrueAmerican

RIIGGGHHHHTTTTT and if you believe that I got a bridge I'd like to sell you at a real good price and I'll pay the taxes ---- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Dinty

Someone should start a petition for term limits. I am too old and hobbled to do so. If I were fifty years younger, I would attempt to do so.