Salvaging What Is Left Of America Step 5- Limiting Judicial Power.

Arguably, the most powerful man in the world is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. With the other members of the court divided equally between four liberal and four, more or less, conservative justices, the important decisions rendered by the court usually are decided five to four with Kennedy invariably providing the swing vote. I have no problem with this situation since it reflects the fact that our nation is divided along similar conservative and liberal lines.

I do have a problem with the fact that un-elected Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. It is also troublesome that, in recent years, the decisions of the court have the effect of making law rather than determining the constitutionality of the laws passed by the other two branches of government, which is their primary purpose under the constitution. First, let's address the issue of longevity. Every time Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg falls asleep at a court function you know there is something amiss with a system, any system, that appoints members of important governmental bodies for life. Can we at least agree on that? One of the best attributes of our system of governance is the fact that "if you don't like them, for any reason, you can throw the bums out at the next election," or at least attempt to do so. With the Supreme Court, and the federal courts for that matter, you are stuck with justices who were appointed by political operatives who, as often is the case, are long gone if not forgotten, while their appointees on the Court continue indefinitely to wreak havoc on our rights and freedoms as a nation. And, guess what, there is nothing we can do about it. Ginsburg will be sitting on the court until she dies of old age, or succumbs to alcoholism. Times change but the Court does not necessarily change with the times, that's a good thing! But it is a bad thing when human values that have not changed (for example, the countries view on late term abortion, gun laws, immigration policy and gay marriage), are altered by five to four decisions of a court that does not, as a whole, represent American values. Too often, today's courts decisions conform to the values of a political minority who march to the drum beat of political correctness and equal outcome. This was the case when Justice john Roberts, writing for the majority, determined that the provision in Obama Care which specifically limits subsidies to exchanges that were "established by a state" actually allowed subsidies in exchanges established by a state or the federal government. Robert's opinion, which is now law, basically rewrote Obama Care into something that the legislative body did not intend and, more importantly, could not have been passed in the House of Representatives. I have concentrated on Supreme Court Justices because these nine men and women ultimately determine what is lawful in our country and what is not. However, I object, with equal vigor, to the fact that all federal judges are appointed for life. This allowed Judge Alcee Hastings to literally get away with murder for years prior to his impeachment. The founders believed that life appointments for members of the federal judiciary would make them less likely to be influenced by outside factors. I would argue that the cons outweigh the pros on this important issue. Certainly, judges who have become senile while in office and those that are overtly corrupt, should not be allowed to serve until the grim-reaper decides that, enough is enough. As with most political problems I write about, the solution to our judicial problems are simple and straight forward. All federal judges should be appointed for a term of 12 years. When their term expires the sitting president would have the option to reappoint them for an additional 12 years and, with the approval of the House of Representatives (not the Senate) they could serve for a second 12 year term. After a second term they should be sent out to pasture where they can do no further harm.