Life tenure for federal judges:

Without the security of a lifetime appointment, judges may fall prey to social and political pressures that could easily undermine their impartiality.

Quote:

Without the security of a lifetime appointment, judges may fall prey to social and political pressures that could easily undermine their impartiality.

Do you REALLY think that federal and supreme court judges are impartial?
If so, why do we speak of "liberal judges" and "conservative judges"? Each judge brings to the bench their own history, prejudices, and political slant on life.

Just because people grow older, hitting a certain age doesn't suddenly make them unqualified for holding public office. Except in rare cases where one's "youthful" age is a bona fide job qualification, age discrimination is unlawful.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.

Maybe I was hasty when I cited 70 as an age for retirement. But what can be done if there is a jurist on the bench who demonstrates that he is no longer able to do the job? I am not speaking about glaring incompetency, which can cause a judge to be removed, but simply a diminishment of mental acuity that can be perceived in the judge's rulings.

Ginsberg should be removed but deserves pension, they say . . .

A Hennepin County judge whose behavior in and out of the courtroom cost him his job has a mental illness and should be retired with a disability pension, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court also said District Court Judge Harvey Ginsberg should be removed from office and barred from practicing law for a year and must have a reinstatement hearing before he can be a lawyer again.

Ginsberg has been on medical leave since June 2003, and because he didn't run for re-election, his current term expires Monday. But the court's consideration of whether the jurist was eligible for a disability pension was a big deal to him and to the outfit that opposed the pension, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards.

"This is something he's entitled to if he's really disabled," said Mark Gehan, the St. Paul attorney who represented Ginsberg. "He's got a wife and kids, and he was extraordinarily anxious about their well-being."

David Paul, executive director of the state's judicial standards board, said he was satisfied with the ruling.

Ginsberg, 51, was appointed to the bench in 1991, elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1998. But according to medical experts who have since examined him, he began suffering from mental illness. The diagnoses include major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

He and others later claimed the mental illness was a factor in incidents that contributed to his removal. He was convicted of misdemeanor assault for slapping a juvenile who had hidden his son's bicycle, and he was convicted of causing criminal damage to property when he scratched the paint on a woman's car in a parking lot.

In a 2002 case involving a defendant charged with cruelty to animals, prosecutors and the defense worked out a plea bargain. When the defense lawyer approached the bench to ask Ginsberg if he would accept the agreement, the judge said, "Let's kill him," referring to the defendant.

Ginsberg then had the accused taken into his chambers with three sheriff's deputies and demanded that the defendant choose one of the deputies with whom to fight. When the man finally picked a deputy, the judge said he would set the case for trial and have it assigned to another judge.

The judicial standards board argued before the Supreme Court that mental illness doesn't excuse a judge's misconduct. Ginsberg's misconduct was so bad, a lawyer for the board argued, that he should be disciplined by being removed from office without the disability pension.

The Supreme Court ruled that it could do both — sanction Ginsberg for the misconduct by removing him from office, and award him the disability pension because mental illness makes him unable to be a judge.

By guaranteeing judges life tenure during good behavior, the Constitution tries to insulate judges from the public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction. Nevertheless, our government, in James Madison's words, ultimately derives "all powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people." Thus, public reaction to judicial decisions, if it is sustained and widespread, can be a factor in the electoral process and lead to the appointment of judges who might decide cases differently....

Although arguments over the federal Judiciary have always been with us, criticism of judges, including charges of activism, have in the eyes of some taken a new turn in recent years.... At the same time, there have been suggestions to impeach federal judges who issue decisions regarded by some as out of the mainstream. And there were several bills introduced in the last Congress that would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide constitutional challenges to certain kinds of government action....

Life tenure for federal judges: Should it be abolished? If so what criteria should be used? Age,health?