| October 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.
Appointment for life may be one reason why some Supreme Court judges start to favor judicial activism. They've been there forever, and judicial activism is the only way to make something new and interesting happen. For some judges it could be a cry for help -- a way of saying, "Get me outta here."
Short of amending the Constitution, perhaps we can just encourage any judges who may wish to do so, to resign, and find high-paying, rewarding work -- book deals, speaking engagements, etc. -- in the private sector.
Why haven't more judges resigned? If they do, and then get big job offers, in some cases they would be accused of having biased their judicial decisions in hope of later obtaining just such offers. In order to make it possible for Supreme Court judges to resign after a reasonable amount of time -- say five or ten years -- we need to identify rewarding, private-sector work for them to do, which would not subject them to such criticism.
U.S. Presidents are able to find such work. It should be possible for Supreme Court judges as well.
