"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:29:34 -0400, Wes wrote:
snip
These judges are appointed for life and there is no real way to influence
them externally.
snip
------------
And herein lies a real problem for the country.
When the US Constitution was written, median life expectancy was
about 35 years,
http://www.answers.com/topic/life-ex...cy?cat=biz-fin
{about 1/3 of way down the page} and a long term illness was one
that took 10 days to kill you. Note that If infant mortality is
excluded, a person that reached 20 could expect to live about
another 40 years, i.e. 60. To be appointed and confirmed as a
judge, you had to be admitted to the bar, and have some legal
background, which would probably put you up into your mid to late
30s at the soonest, leaving at most 25 years on the bench.
Currently, life expectancy at birth is now 78 in the United
States
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html or an increase of 43
years from 1776 or more than a 100% increase. Using the life
expectancy by age tables, it can be seen that there has been a
huge increase in the term of "life time appointment."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
This gross increase in tenure because of increased lifespan is
amplified and exacerbated by advances in medical technology
whereby individuals suffering from chronic conditions such as
cancer or cognitive disfunction are now kept alive for years,
e.g. Chief Justice William Rehnquist
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/rehnquist/index.html
Given the increasing participation of the judges in the
legislative process through "judicial activism," the country can
no longer tolerate mentally impaired judges, judges pre-occupied
with their own mortality and impending death, or judges totally
out of touch with current conditions, who are still living in the
1960s [or earlier] in a land that never was.
== Thus there seems to be every justification for legislation
specifying that a total of 20 years on the Federal bench at all
levels shall constitute a "life-time," with mandatory retirement
at full pay, and to require an annual intensive physical and
mental evaluation of all judges to verify their ability to
fulfill the requirements of that office after their 65th
birthday, with automatic retirement at full pay should they not
pass. This seems more than fair to the judges.
[In your dreams...]
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
Technically, you're right about the long lifespans of people nowadays making
the time spent on the Supreme Court excessively long. However, until
Rehnquist died the make up of the court had remained the same for ten years,
but that was a record, I believe. So, even though as a rule people live
longer than they used to the actual tenure of the average justice on the SC
isn't all that long. On the other hand, I think a life term for SC members
was a goof up by the Founding Fathers. We should put the SC on a specific
term length. Twenty years is more than enough. I'd lean more toward a
fifteen or eighteen year maximum.
Hawke