Uh, actually, yes. Have you seen state court judicial elections? They are a joke. In my state, which regretfully has elected judges, judges actually campaign for the Supreme Court on overturning particular laws or rulings. Moreover, the lower judges in state courts are often woefully unqualified but keep winning reelection because of name recognition or a party machine. Heck, in my county alone, there are four judges with the same last name. And it's not Smith.
It has proven to be a complete failure.
Really? Why are plaintiffs' attorneys generally scared to death of federal court? Why do they typically fight, tooth and nail, to keep cases in state court? The answer, Marlowe, is because federal judges know what they are doing. They know the law and they don't have to worry about losing their job because of an unpopular decision.
Did I suggest that Federal Judges ought to be elected? I don't think I did, so your analogy is misplaced.
They know the law and they don't have to worry about losing their job because of an unpopular decision.
Did I suggest that a Federal Judge ought to be booted from office for an unpopular decision? I don't think I did.
I merely suggested that an appointment to the Federal Bench should not be a lifetime appointment and ought to be a non-renewable appointment limited to a fixed number of years. I would think 12 would be sufficient. I believe that the language of the Constitution would allow Congress to set a fixed tenure for a Federal judge. Now maybe the Supreme Court might disagree, but then I don't necessarily believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
I guess that makes me a heretic.