The issue of examining whether federal judges should have term limits is a worthy one.
Life tenure was established to help the federal judiciary be more independent from the partisan political control.
The federal judiciary is severely limited because it has neither the power of the purse (Congress) nor the sword (president).
The federal judiciary relies on the other two branches to follow its decisions and on the people to grant legitimacy to those decisions and support them.
Without that, the judiciary is virtually powerless.
The plan proposed by a writer fails on several significant issues.
First, some states have multiple federal district courts. Florida is one. That would likely require a state to have regional elections.
Second, the writer did not address the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. The writer fails to account for the complicated coordination among those regional states. Election procedures and voter eligibility are individual to each state and carry vary greatly from one state to the next.
Last, the writer does not account for what percentage vote would be needed for a judge.
In Florida, for example, we use a 60 percent vote needed to remove (to not retain) a judge at the appellate or Supreme Court level.
Under Florida’s system, no judge has ever been removed under a merit retention vote.
If we were to lower that percentage, say to 51 percent, that opens up more partisanship.
Often the courts are the last bastion minorities can turn to for their rights. Judges knowing they could be removed by a simple majority vote may be even more likely to support the “majority” wishes rather than impartially making their decisions in protecting us all of all of our rights.
Before being appointed to a federal court, an appointee goes through an extensive partisan political process to reach the judgeship. Senators can prevent that appointment through the use of a “hold” or even a “filibuster.”
No judge gets through that appointment process without approval of the Senate. However, once appointed, the judge is greatly shielded from that type of political partisanship in decisions.
If a judge has truly “bad” behavior on the bench (like corruption or bribery for example), the impeachment process exists.
Several federal district or circuit court judges have been removed with that exact process.
Though a term of “good behavior” for federal judges (as stated in the Constitution) should be examined and discussed. It should be done so with a complete understanding of its intended purpose and the negative consequences that could result in changing it.
Robert Hall, Jacksonville