> then the current administration would get a free pass to replace a large cohort of politically mixed old judges with a homogeneous slate of young D judges. An

> then the current administration would get a free pass to replace a large cohort of politically mixed old judges with a homogeneous slate of young D judges. And it would be a one-shot imbalance, because in the future, judges would age out gradually instead of 10% all at once. Allow me to point out how absurd this objection is in the context of the last decade and a half or so. Party A publicly declares that as a matter of policy, they will proudly and purposefully go to any length to prevent nominations by the presidency, held by Party B, for eight years. Party A secures the presidency (with the lowest popular vote count in history) and proceeds to stuff the federal judiciary with nearly two hundred and fifty appointments, many of whom are widely criticized by numerous groups including the American Bar Association as being wildly unqualified and in the few short years since have handily confirmed this with comically bad rulings. In a severe backlash by the American public, Party B returns to the white house and secures substantial congressional control It is pointed out that we have a small number of judges who are senile and that they should probably be forcibly retired ...and that is "unfair" because Party B would get the "one shot" opportunity to replace a handful of judges... ...after party A replaced two hundred and fifty in four years? Bish, please.