Which of their points make the most sense to you, even if you made a case for the opposing viewpoint?

Looking for some help? We have it all. Great price and impressive quality

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order

HelIo Everyone,
I believe that federal judges should serve lifetime terms. I believe that if they have qualified for their position with the top ranking credentials in the country for the president to choose from, then they have earned there place on the federal level as a federal judge. Thus, they should be accommodated to serve lifetime terms. I also believe that in cases where a federal judge is not living up to their high standards of being a federal judge, then they should be evicted from service.
(Chase, 1972) Technically, every judge who operates in the federal system is a federal judge. Furthermore, some of our Federal courts are Article 3 courts, which means that they have been constitute by Congress in accordance with the provision of Article 3 of the Constitution. Article 3 court judges serve doing good behavior for life unless they choose to resign voluntarily.
(Vile & Reilly, 1990) A careful reader of the Constitution might be impressed as unusual that no comparable qualifications are listed for members of the federal judiciary as it is for the President, Senators, and the House of Representatives. The discussion at the Constitutional Convention was decided not to include any qualifications, centered on whether property should be landed or not and whether those with debts and/or money owed to the U.S. should be permitted to hold public office. The only other apparent mention of the judicial qualifications at the convention was a joke related by Benjamin Franklin in which he noted the Scottish practice, in which the nomination proceeded from the lawyers, who always selected the ablest of the pro-1.
Reference
Chase (1972) Federal judges: The appointing process. U of Minnesota Press. www.scholar.google.com
Vile & Reilly (1990) United States Constitution and judiciary qualifications: A curious omission. Judicature. 74 p.198. www.scholar.google.com
In your response to your peers, consider how well they justified their position, making use of available resources. Consider the following questions in your response posts:
Did they support their position convincingly with appropriate resources?
Which of their points make the most sense to you, even if you made a case for the opposing viewpoint?

Looking for some help? We have it all. Great price and impressive quality

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *