9th August 2005, 9:55 PM
You know, I was starting to see their way of thinking in this, that they wouldn't want "petty politics" involved, but in the end our government is a necessary evil (as a founding father once put it). Sure cheap political ploys can be used, but in the end you are right, the judges ARE meant to fear reprisals, within limits in the constitution, from the other branches. They HAVE to have an idea that they are representing the people.
You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them!
You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them!
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)