Term-limits proposals for judges pondered

We need to watch how this goes in Colorado. I have a feeling that as more people see and experience the current out of control judiciary, more states and even the federal government will consider this move.
I have always been for term limits. We do not need ‚Äúprofessional politicians‚ÄĚ. Think about it. Laws would have to simpler and more straight forward. We would have fewer laws. Is there really a downside to term limits?
I agree that getting this sort of thing passed by the very people who would be affected by it is a long shot, but maybe, just maybe…

A proposed judicial term-limits measure would throw state Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and six appellate court judges off the bench, several lawyers said Wednesday.
Former state Senate President John Andrews, who is leading the effort to curtail the length of judicial terms, is pushing two measures.
The first, Initiative 75, was approved for the ballot by the state Supreme Court on Monday. The second, Initiative 90, is pending before the high court.
Andrews said the tendency of sitting judges to go beyond the limits of judicial authority cuts across party lines.
“When they put those black robes on, there is this disturbing tendency to overstep the constitutionality of the judicial branch,” he said.
“It’s simple logic that you don’t term-limit two branches of your government (the executive and the legislative) and give a de facto life tenure to the third,” he added.
Andrews said Initiative 90 is worded so that it is retroactive, meaning it would require any sitting Supreme Court justice or appellate court judge with more that 12 years of service to step down by the 2008 general election.
Thus Mullarkey, with 18 years of service, and Appellate Court Judges Jose D.L. Marquez, Janice Davidson, Sandra Rothenberg, Daniel Taubman, James Casebolt and Arthur Roy would be forced to step down.
Initiative 75, however, would not affect the existing terms of sitting judges, he said.
The same group is behind both initiatives, Andrews said. If the Supreme Court also clears Initiative 90 for the ballot, the group will decide which one to pursue by gathering signatures, according to Andrews.
“We’re still evaluating which one would accomplish the judicial reform goals and which would find the greatest favor among voters,” he said.
The Denver Bar Association opposes both measures. (of course they do. -ed)
And while the Supreme Court has ruled that Initiative 75 would be “prospective,” meaning it would not curtail the terms of sitting judges, bar association officials contend the language is unclear.

Original Link.

Leave a Reply