Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For decades, a debate over lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary have pitted those who value freedom from political influence against those who see a need for accountability. The former want to continue the tradition, and the latter want either term limits, retention elections, or a combination of both, as many states have in place now. No serious effort has been made to propose such a system, but perhaps an “exit interview” by the New York Times’ Adam Liptak of retired appellate jurist Richard Posner will prompt one. And it should, as Posner inadvertently makes the best possible case for it:
Quote:
He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless. “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”
The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”
I'm not sure about ending lifetime appointments, especially NOW when there is a Republican President making lifetime appointments. If they are to be ended, ALL judges should be affected including the leftist extremists Obama stacked the bench with.
A better solution would be more stringent judicial oversight and discipline. A recent good place to start would be the judges who dictated U.S. immigration policy by issuing political decisions to halt Trump's travel ban. Such judges should be severely sanctioned if not removed rom the bench and disbarred.
I assume you are posing the question to Judge Posner. I don't know why he hates the Constitution. He views it as an "obstacle" to getting the result he wants in a particular case.
Make the argument that someone like Judge Posner belongs on the bench.
Lifetime appointments are to ensure the less likelihood of being corrupted by outside groups, however I do think there should be an annual metric that some professions ALREADY do to prove competence... the liberal judges will fail this test every year when it comes to defending the Constitution which is the only metric for that profession...
The court system has always worked rather well, we don't need to change it now because someone doesn't like the outcome. We don't need the Venezuelan model for our court system. We don't need to change our constitution now because the president doesn't like it, besides he just got his refugee ban from the courts so what's the issue.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-13-2017 at 11:34 AM..
The court system has always worked rather well, we don't need to change it now because someone doesn't like the outcome. We don't need to Venezuelan model for our court system. We don't need to change our constitution now because the president doesn't like it, besides he just got his refugee ban from the courts so what's the issue.
Meanwhile the calls for getting rid of the EC are deafening from the Left, even you have stated as such. Maybe this advice is in order:
"We don't need to change our constitution now because the Democrats lost an election."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.