The Supreme Court on TrialJames MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench.

Seems to me that tenure, a peripheral issue in this discussion, should really be regarded as the centrally obnoxious feature of the court's makeup, which contributes critically to its mediocrity and lack of responsiveness, to say nothing of the dispiriting nature of appointment battles.

As an alternative to the radical surgery of undoing Marbury, how about giving up lifetime tenure for federal judges? If we limited everyone to one 10-year term (say) for each of district, appeals, and supreme court levels, it seems to me that that would draw much of the poison from appointment politics, and naturally bring court culture more closely in sync with the nation. We might wind up limiting the "contributions" of talented jurists with more to give, but it's not as if the U.S. is short of legal talent. The depth of the bench (hah!), which is otherwise an embarrassment in our heavily over-lawyered culture, actually would work in our favor if we started rotating lawyers in --- and out --- of the federal judiciary.

I realize that takes an amendment, which is hard. Seems worth it, though.

-- Carlo Graziani
(To reply, click here)