http://www.courtzero.org/bgplatform.html

Your demands:

1. Link to your own blog
2. Understand what the heck you are attempting to talk about.
3. Remain respectful

Nathan appears to know quite well what he’s talking about, so you can quit harassing him on that score. And maybe he doesn’t have a blog to link to, a possibility that apparently hasn’t crossed your mind. Finally, you’re not at all respectful of his comments. Why not play by your own rules?

No wonder you hate the legal process so much. In your eyes it would be ideal to have the power to just force everyone you disagree with to bend to your will.

First off moron, it is a term for life. Article 3 Section 1

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

The article mentions no expiration of terms like Articles 1 and 2 do for the Legislative and Executive Branches (respectively) And this is a fact.

And having a lib lecture on the morality of quoting others out of context reminds me of a platitude. The one about throwing stones in glass houses.

This is your only warning, go away until you are able to bring yourself to comply with the following:

1. Link to your own blog
2. Understand what the heck you are attempting to talk about.
3. Remain respectful

These are Gribbit’s Anti-Troll rules. Jay only has a restriction on profanity. I’m less willing to accept ignorance.

And insofar as judicial power is concerned I submit another quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.”

What he means here is that the judicial branch can not act in anything other than the court room. However, as they decide what is legal within their courtrooms it is only natural that they have SOME effect on legislation. Who would pass a law that is not enforceable?

Furthermore, it isn’t a term of “life.” Please get your facts straight.

And finally, the reason for such incredible terms is that it adds to predictability. Predictability has been a tenet of the legal system since Roman times. It is the reason for many terms and concepts such as stare decisis.

I agree that it is time that we install term limits for federal judges.

Congressman are elected for 2 year terms with no limits on the number of re-electable terms. Senators are elected to 6 year terms with no limits on the number of re-electable terms. The President is elected to no more than 2 full 4 year terms and can serve no more than 1 day less than 1/2 of a previous President’s term should the need arise to replace a President.

I would propose limiting federal judges to no more than 3 terms of 6 years each. After the expiration of their first 6 years on the bench, they would have to be re-nominated by the sitting President and be re-confirmed by the Senate. Then the process would repeat after their second 6 year term. I think that a maximum 18 years on the bench is more than enough. But that is just me.