4 ms·

Judges deciding cases based on what the law says, free from fear of political reprisal is the intended feature. Lifetime appointments get you that (or very nea

Judges deciding cases based on what the law says, free from fear of political reprisal is the intended feature. Lifetime appointments get you that (or very nearly to it). If you know of a strictly better way to get the same feature, what is it?

jonp888 6y ago
America surely does not have such a shortage of well-qualified lawyers that each justice needs to serve for decades. It's certainly not an argument anyone would accept regarding the President. Just have them serve a single long term, and then that's it. You might lose some expertise, but on the other hand, you don't have the tragic spectacle of Justices dieing in office whilst waiting for a 'safe' time to retire.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  The point about having them "serve decades" is to ensure that a single government period isn't enough to swap out all judges. If a new political faction comes into power they can't after a short term replace all judges with whatever the view of the season is, but only when the movement is established over long period will gain those powers with election in between, which can rebalance. Taking again Germany as my example, since I know it best: There are 16 judges with a period of 12 years. Adding the age limit and other reasons that averages to about 2 elections per year. Thus a bit more than 4 years till a new group can take over the majority. (Now they are elected alternating by the different chambers of parliament, where one of the chambers, Bundesrat, is also slower moving in replacement ... making it hard for a short term movement to take over control and if, impact is relatively short - unless they stay in power long enough to replace all.
xienze 6y ago
> If you know of a strictly better way to get the same feature, what is it? Let them serve for a limited period of time, say 16 years max. Can't be removed before then. It's not that complicated and would prevent justices who literally sit on the bench until the day they die.

jonp888 6y ago

America surely does not have such a shortage of well-qualified lawyers that each justice needs to serve for decades. It's certainly not an argument anyone would accept regarding the President. Just have them serve a single long term, and then that's it. You might lose some expertise, but on the other hand, you don't have the tragic spectacle of Justices dieing in office whilst waiting for a 'safe' time to retire.

johannes1234321 6y ago
The point about having them "serve decades" is to ensure that a single government period isn't enough to swap out all judges. If a new political faction comes into power they can't after a short term replace all judges with whatever the view of the season is, but only when the movement is established over long period will gain those powers with election in between, which can rebalance. Taking again Germany as my example, since I know it best: There are 16 judges with a period of 12 years. Adding the age limit and other reasons that averages to about 2 elections per year. Thus a bit more than 4 years till a new group can take over the majority. (Now they are elected alternating by the different chambers of parliament, where one of the chambers, Bundesrat, is also slower moving in replacement ... making it hard for a short term movement to take over control and if, impact is relatively short - unless they stay in power long enough to replace all.

xienze 6y ago

> If you know of a strictly better way to get the same feature, what is it? Let them serve for a limited period of time, say 16 years max. Can't be removed before then. It's not that complicated and would prevent justices who literally sit on the bench until the day they die.