Article III Section 1 of the Constitution has provided federal judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, with job security that allows them to retain their position as long as they show good behavior while holding the position.

I wouldn’t imagine it’s hard to stay out of trouble when you’re pushing 70. Basically, a bunch of ethical canons that were meant to add a degree of checks and balances concerning federal judges are nothing more than a facade in present times.

Life tenure is almost a guarantee and this maxim has led to the limitation of an evolving forum.

These judges aren’t even expected to follow the rules as written and are given leniency when it comes to certain matters like refraining from political activity. This rule seems more like a suggestion than anything else.

Only 15 federal judges in the entire history of the U.S. have been impeached, a little over half of which were subsequently removed.

Life tenure was presumably meant to protect judges’ probity and prevent political pressure in passing out opinions. But the president’s picking of Supreme Court justices and them gaining approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee ensure that the appointment and confirmation of judges could never be apolitical.

In fact, the appointment-and-confirmation process is solely left up to politicians and not the voting population. Whether the voting population should elect their judges is a different argument for a different time, but it shows that some of the rules that hold judges accountable for their eligibility for life tenure are inherently hypocritical.

Sure, nine justices reside over the Supreme Court — a low number compared to the 874 federal judges that fall under Article III’s designation when you include the appellate and district courts. Judges in the latter courts hear a plethora of cases that don’t make it to the Supreme Court’s docket.

At the very least, term limits and a rotation of the Supreme Court bench to district and appellate levels seem like a reasonable middle ground between life tenure and entirely terminating a federal judge’s position after a predetermined time frame.

These propositions are not new. Limitations on life tenure had been proposed as early as the turn of the 19th century, a couple of decades after the ratification of the Judiciary Act of 1789. But here we sit, in 2016, and it seems like the power is still with the judges and their appointees.

Partisan arguments aside, a staggered nine or 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices with a vacancy every one to two years would mitigate the uncertainty concerning which president would be in office whenever a new appointment was made.

A rotation of the Supreme Court bench would prevent stagnated interpretation while diminish the hubristic effect of position power.

No matter how legitimate, or illegitimate, medical arguments regarding the mental health of elderly judges may be, the institutionalization of an ageist policy seems ill-advised. It is also not evident in any other branch of the government aside from the minimum age requirements to hold office.

This doesn’t mean that these judges should retain the same position until they retire or pass away, though. Federal judges can work at the lower levels or move up to higher levels of the federal court system once their term at other capacities is complete.

Some Supreme Court justices may believe that appellate and district courts are truly “inferior” like the wording in the Constitution denotes. This language is archaic and was merely a U.S. interpretation of English law that was taken out of context and originally created in response to an overreaching monarchy. Just like the idea of life tenure.

The evolution of beliefs is intrinsically human and, as a result, the evolution of ideologies is an innate part of humanity at large.

We leave little room for this evolution within our society and its legal system, both of which meant to protect the people, when we allow large swaths of time be dominated by static opinions.

Opinion columnist Nicholas Bell is an MBA graduate student and can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Life tenure should not be an option for federal judges” was originally posted on The Daily Cougar