Woody Wants To Term-Limit Judges?

Posted September 25th, 2020 by Iron Mike

Article III § 1.  “…shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”

4 Responses to “Woody Wants To Term-Limit Judges?”

  1. Walter Knight

    I think it is a stretch that “shall hold their Offices during good behavior” means ‘for life.’ It’s an interpretation that should be reviewed because if the writers intended justices serve ‘for life’ they would have said so more plainly.

    That said, Kennedy is still an asshole.

    █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █

    Our Founders and Framers were well-educated men who wrote in simple terms.

    If they’d meant to term-limit judges, – they’d have stated so quite clearly.

    The only difference between 1787 and today is average life expectancy.

  2. Kilsyth

    Obviously JK III and cohorts are not concerned about reasonable term limits. They are concerned about conservative, originalist justices serving on the Supreme Court longer than revisionists would like. That said, there is validity in the difference between life expectancy when the Constitution was written, and what it can be today. RBG herself served more than 18 years, so what is important about that particular number? It is as arbitrary as any other.

  3. Jim Buba

    Clap for that!

  4. Stubby Buddy

    The focus, as Iron Mike rightly points out, is “good behavior” on the part of judges.

    EVERY judge – supreme court, federal courts, state courts – swear an oath to support the US Constitution – AS WRITTEN AND AS INTENDED. With the very FIRST decision ever made contrary to that oath, they are no longer on “good behavior” and at that very point should be impeached and removed from the bench (or whatever the state procedure is, for state judges).

    rbg would never have made it to the USSC under proper application of that limitation. Neither would Kagan, Sotomayor, a slew of FDRs nominees, and a panoply of villains infesting the lower courts. We would not have entire federal circuits run by “progressive” (i.e., dangerously ANTI-American, ANTI-Constitution) judges.

    Once again, the solution is to enforce the Constitution AS WRITTEN and AS INTENDED.

    What good does any amendment do when not enforced? It would simply mean more provisions that get ignored.