Oh, Noonan
Read these two phrases:
The idea behind life-tenure was to remove judges from the passions and pressures of the day, thus insulating our judiciary and giving it the ability to rule strictly upon the law.
And:
We get judges who don't have to care whit about what people think...
Leave it to Mark Noonan to contradict himself in the span of three paragraphs.
The purpose of life-tenure for judges was to remove them from the "passions and pressures of the day," but that would include insulating them from "what people think."
Judges are supposed to be impartial and free to rule on law, not concerned by the will of the electorate. And if the current system is impartial enough for Bill Frist, it's good enough for me.
*UPDATE* Mark Noonan stops by:
"who don't have to care what people think OR WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY IS"...you should complete important sentences like that...while we want judges who will be unswayed by what people think, we do very much want them to care about what the law is...by giving Justices life tenure, we've taken away any control over their actions...
First, let me say the addition of the phrase "or what the law actually is" does not change my argument or my point at all. Mark clearly suggest there that judges should somehow be subject to what people think. It's either sloppy blogging, or something Mark really believes but is afraid to admit it.
I'm not sure I see any merits in the argument, myself. The whole point of lifetime tenure is so the public doesn't have control over how judges rule. And term limits would not provide the people with any of this so called "control" anyway, because it's not up to the public who gets appointed to which judgeship. If I think of more, perhaps I'll turn it into a post.
Another thought. What about cases that last longer than ten years? Or cases that start as a judges tenure is about to change? Do we have to restart the trial? Do we force the judge to stay on past his limit? Or do we change judges mid trial and hope for the best?
Anyway, I'm off to bed.