This article is wrong legally and politically.
Supreme Court Justices have life tenure, because "good behavior" tenure means life tenure. This "textualist" argument is silly, because constitutional textualism still relies on context and public meaning. 1/ newrepublic.com/article/151620…
Supreme Court Justices have life tenure, because "good behavior" tenure means life tenure. This "textualist" argument is silly, because constitutional textualism still relies on context and public meaning. 1/ newrepublic.com/article/151620…
2/ There are so many sources, but let's start with Hamilton, Federalist 78: These are his caps, not mine:"All judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions..."
3/ I’m not going to tweet the text of Federalist 78. Just read it here. It is one of the best pieces of constitutional thought, and it is clear and concise. Must-read for anyone who wants to understand constitutional law. Goldstone does not get it. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…
4/ Thank the Framers for getting this right. Imagine If Congress could just start limiting the terms of judges right now by 51% votes. Trump could clear the bench (bench-clearing brawl), appoint his minions, and keep control of them via short terms.
Disaster for democracy.
Disaster for democracy.
5/ Hamilton, Federalist 79:
"With regard to the judges, who, if they behave properly, will be secured in their places for life, it may well happen..that a stipend,which would be very sufficient at their first appointment, would become too small in the progress of their service."
"With regard to the judges, who, if they behave properly, will be secured in their places for life, it may well happen..that a stipend,which would be very sufficient at their first appointment, would become too small in the progress of their service."
