- Nov 17, 2019
- 10,805
- 6,465
- 136
What exactly does that mean to you? Above reproach? Beyond question? Can't be held accountable?
We've all read about rulings that raise eyebrows for one reason or another, some just because we didn't agree, but others because we felt they were wrong or unethical for one reason or another. Some have openly crossed lines of conflict of interest.
While elected Judges can simply be voted out, it can be very difficult to remove appointed Judges from office. That usually involves long drawn out impeachment proceedings and has to include criminal charges. It's happened in a few cases of Federal judges. There have been a few removed by various state Judicial disciplinary processes.
But what about appointend Judges who have a history of conflicts or bad rulings that don't quite rise to the level of illegal behavior? Should Federal or State Legislative and Executive branches be able to act to counter such situations? We've seen cases where good, well intentioned, popular and functional laws were invalidated on technicalities or certain wording. In some cases laws that were rewritten were also shot down.
In the spirit of 'check and balances', how do we correct bad rulings or remove appointed Judges that make them?
My first thought has always been to eliminate the 'appointed for life' bit. ALL Judges at all levels should be up for renewal at some interval different than legislators and executives. Maybe 10 years, or 15.
We've all read about rulings that raise eyebrows for one reason or another, some just because we didn't agree, but others because we felt they were wrong or unethical for one reason or another. Some have openly crossed lines of conflict of interest.
While elected Judges can simply be voted out, it can be very difficult to remove appointed Judges from office. That usually involves long drawn out impeachment proceedings and has to include criminal charges. It's happened in a few cases of Federal judges. There have been a few removed by various state Judicial disciplinary processes.
But what about appointend Judges who have a history of conflicts or bad rulings that don't quite rise to the level of illegal behavior? Should Federal or State Legislative and Executive branches be able to act to counter such situations? We've seen cases where good, well intentioned, popular and functional laws were invalidated on technicalities or certain wording. In some cases laws that were rewritten were also shot down.
In the spirit of 'check and balances', how do we correct bad rulings or remove appointed Judges that make them?
My first thought has always been to eliminate the 'appointed for life' bit. ALL Judges at all levels should be up for renewal at some interval different than legislators and executives. Maybe 10 years, or 15.