Offering common sense solutions for judicial discipline.
How to file a complaint of judicial misconduct

A Constitutional Amendment

Okay, okay, we know how hard it is to get a majority of the States to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. But it's the only real way to change the Supreme Law of our land and it's not impossible.

We reject judicial activism as a means, since the means do not justify the ends. We would then be just as guilty as the judges we're trying to restrain. We're not politicians here. We either do it right or we don't do it. We trust if the people are fed up with judicial activism, they will demand their Representatives implement term limits for judges.

To that end, below is a proposed amendment to minimize the problem of runaway judges. Perhaps we can ram this through along with Steve Forbes' flat tax amendment.

COMMENTARY

While the Founding Fathers did an excellent job of crafting our Constitution, they erred when they granted life tenure to Federal Judges. The Founders failed to foresee two problems fostered by life tenure — the problem of politics (lately in the form of Judicial Activism) and the problem of senility. This Amendment addresses both these problems by limiting Article III Judges to renewable twelve year terms (being twice the term of a Senator), requiring a "super-majority" of (presumably different) Senators to reaffirm. It also limits the age of service of an Article III Judge to 65 years of age. Note that the Judiciary already limits its Chief Judges to a seven year term and an age limit.

While the intent of life tenure was to isolate Judges from politics by making them immune to retribution should they rule rightly by restraining those usurping power, it's had the opposite effect. Instead of isolating Judges from politics, it's allowed them to mutate into political creatures that no known antibiotic can touch. As anyone in college knows, once a Professor has attained tenure, there is no incentive for him to perform rightly. He can behave wantonly without fear of repercussion because it's virtually impossible to oust him. There is no fear before his eyes.

The Founders did not foresee that less than honorable men would aspire to power in our government. It never occurred to them that Presidents would stack the Supreme Court. But history has shown that men have and Presidents do. The Founders assumed only honorable men would be appointed as Judges. But less than honorable have been appointed. When a less than honorable man, who cannot be easily removed, is appointed judge, there is nothing to restrain him from selfishly exercising his power, overruling and usurping power from the other two branches of government. (Impeachment being practically impossible.) We have seen this come to pass. Judicial Activism is rampant within all our courts and we are virtually powerless to overturn it. Hence, the need to limit the terms of Judges, only allowing them to continue if they are exceptionally good. (As determined by a super-majority of confirmation votes.)

The Founders also did not foresee the problem of age extension due to our improved technology, improved standard of living and improved medicine. Thus, diseases of the mind, which are subtle to discern, such as dementia, Alzheimer's, and other debilitating diseases of the brain, are on the increase. We challenge wills changed by the elderly because we suspect they may not be in their right mind or easily influenced by those around them. (Clerks.) How much more, then, should we ensure that Judges who rule our Country are in their right mind?

Since the Supreme Court has seen fit to let stand the FAA's "Age 60 Rule" forcing retirement of airline pilots (whose decisions affect thousands of lives) how much more, then, should we mandate forced retirement of judges, whose decisions affect millions of lives. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.) Judges should retire at the close of session in the year they attain 65 years of age. (Quick reflexes not being a requirement to rule the country — hence 65 instead of 60.) Note the Judiciary already limits its Chief Judges to age 65 in some circuits.

Therefore, we propose the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

PROPOSAL: An amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the terms of Article III Judges.

Article--

SECTION 1.

An Article III, Section I Judge must retire from office at the end of session (or, if no court session, on December 31) in the year he attains 65 years of age. Compensation for services (except for retirement benefits established prior by Congress) shall cease at that time. [Do we need an exception to allow Judges to complete a case in process, as below? But not Supreme Court Justices. We treat this Section like death for them. Or do we have to wait for attrition?]



SECTION 2.

Except as provided, an Article III, Section I Judge can only hold office for a term of twelve years, calculated as the end of the 144th month after he was sworn into office. If the Judge is engaged in trial at the end of the 144th month, he may, at his discretion, continue to adjudicate those cases that began six months prior to the calculated end of term. [So as to prevent "queuing" cases to keep an errant judge in office.] For judges who have served more than twelve years at the time this Amendment becomes law, those who have been in office for more than twenty years will continue in office for one additional year. For judges who have served more than twelve years at the time this Amendment becomes law, those who have been in office for more than fifteen years, but less than twenty, will continue in office for a period of two additional years. For judges who have served more than twelve years at the time this Amendment becomes law, those who have been in office for less than fifteen years will continue in office for a period of three additional years. Judges will be reviewed by the Senate for re-confirmation, starting with the longest serving judges first. [Need to segue into this new twelve year cycle so as to not bring the system to a screeching halt.]



SECTION 3.

After a twelve-year term, an Article III, Section I Judge may serve another twelve year term only if seventy five percent of the all available Senators reaffirm before his twelve-year term is expired.



Help us tune this up

As there is wisdom in counsel, we invite your comments in making this proposal better or closing unforeseen loopholes. As you can see, we're not smart enough to do this all ourselves. We'll happily entertain constructive comments, but remember, the shorter a proposed amendment, the easier to ratify. (See the amendments already ratified as examples of conciseness.)

TOP ^^