Is a lifetime appointment for Federal judges logical?

When considering changes to the United States government I think it is important to evaluate the roles of federal judges and why the should NOT be appointed for life. This article titled Life Tenure for Federal Judges: Should it be Abolished? makes some interesting points.

How easy is to become complacent and settled into a job that you know you will have for life? The only reason you lose your job is being impeached for violating certain rules and laws. Well if you are a federal judge, that is the exact position you would find yourself in. This is just ridiculous, when you consider how many qualified candidates are possibly overlooked simply because their timing was wrong. Being a federal judge comes with quite a bit of power, and not to mention they have the ability to interpret the laws of our country in basically whatever way they see fit. When you also consider that federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate then its hard to believe that their is not a biased point of view in the process of appointing judges, as the president surely appoints these judges who represent their party.  In other words judges who are appointed, are done so with the idea that they can help further the agenda of the party in power.

So how should it be done? Lets look at our options. We could elect them through a vote, but it that in our best interest? I say no, absolutely not. If we were to have elections for judges, then the judges have to put a campaign together, and with campaigns come campaign contributions, which as we know, comes with a lot of lobbying. We don't want our judges being influenced by whomever contributed the most money to the campaign, we want judges who are neutral and will uphold the integrity of our constitution. So I believe the best way to do it would be to allow the senate, house of representatives, and the president, all come together to make a decision of who should be federal judges. Now I know that if all three sections are controlled by one party or another, then you will see many of the same processes we have today, but at least you have more heads who contribute to that decision.  Furthermore, judges should be appointed to a one time fixed amount of time. I still believe it should be a lengthy amount of time, say ten or twenty years, to allow for consistency in our courtrooms, but also preventing complacency.  This is a very complex subject and has many things factoring in but it is absolutely absurd to appoint some to a position of such power for a lifetime, and needs to be seriously reevaluated. 

Frivolous Lawsuits

My fellow classmate Kyle wrote an editorial last week about frivolous lawsuits. I must say that I have to completely agree with him.  The idea that someone can drink coffee from McDonald's, burn their mouth because the coffee is so hot, and then in turn sue McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, it not only embarrassing, but it is also an absolute joke. Lawsuits such as these make a complete mockery of the system, people looking for a free handout turn to our courtrooms in efforts to make a quick buck. Hello?? Coffee is supposed to be hot last time I checked, and furthermore I'll tell you each and every time I purchase coffee, or make it at myself, my first instinct is not to take a giant gulp of it when it fresh out of the pot, unless maybe I get it from Starbucks, who have somehow managed to serve coffee at the perfect drinking temperature. These types of lawsuits may appear to cost the company being sued but in reality in cost you.  What happens when McDonald's loses a ridiculous lawsuit like this one , they raise the prices of their product, and in the end, its the public, the customers, who end up paying the bill.

This article supplies a list of ten of the most ridiculous lawsuits of all time.  Look many lawsuits are legitimate and necessary, but as you can see on this list, some of them are just flat out atrocious and have no business even being entered into a court room.  These lawsuits cost the taxpayers money and it costs the courts time, that they could be using to handle other more serious claims and offenses. A reform of some sort should be taken into consideration, the problem is, like Kyle points out, who decides what is and is not a legitimate lawsuit?