in a perfect world of yancies: court poll, music update

03 November 2005

court poll, music update

well, on Halloween night the thing too frightening for me to even mention in the earlier post was Deron's suggestion that Supreme Court Justices ought to have limited terms (18 years was the figure he mentioned, but the big question seems to boil down to a limited term or not . . .)
at first I was quite horrified by the idea & sure it was either a horrible holiday "trick" or that Deron had lost his grip on the world . . . but now I've become a little less certain how I feel
I'm quite sure I don't like the idea, but it's gotten a little harder for me to explain why that is . . .

So I'm inviting you (yes, all three of the people who read this blog!) to let me know what you think: there's a poll below, which I invite you to vote in; and please feel free to comment at length on your view.

For anyone with the time or inclination to make a slightly more informed vote, I offer you two pieces of reading on the subject matter.

Now this may be ill-advised, but I'm a fan of stuff that's old & has stood the test of time, and I'm a fan of considering things in the proper context . . . thus, the first document is by Publius (Alexander Hamilton, in this case):
The Federalist #78, on the Judicial Department
An essay by a founding father explaining, in part, why lifetime appointments seem like a good idea.

The second piece is one Deron brought to my attention, an article by Stuart Taylor Jr. from the National Journal, 25 June 2005:
"Life Tenure Is Too Long For Supreme Court Justices"
(& I sure hope posting that is 'fair use,' or I may see some judges soon myself)

The issue, as I see it, hinges on the independence of the judicial branch, crucial to the whole checks & balances thing--can the Court remain truly independent without lifetime appointments?
On the other hand, is having Justices who serve into their 90's such a great thing? And wouldn't it be nice to know whether a President would in fact be appointing a Justice? Further, Taylor argues, perhaps the confirmation hearings wouldn't be so rough (now he wrote before Chief Justice Roberts breezed by, so we'll forgive him that one) if they occurred more often. . . .
Again, though, what about that independence? . . . so, anyway, what do you think?

do you favor term limits for Supreme Court Justices?
sounds pretty good
not sure
I don't think so
hell no


Free polls from

On another note, I can't stop thinking about that group, Tsu Shi Ma Mi Re, that we saw last week--and now we finally got the album!
it turns out that buying Tsu Shi Ma Mi Re's album on iTunes is possible, just a little difficult: you have to spell their name right . . . so the correct spelling then, is つしまみれ . . . (???) . . . so if anyone's interested, clicking on their name, つしまみれ, in this post should take you to the iTunes page with their album, an album which I would recommend again and again and again. Fabulous. つしまみれ.


  1. Well, I read both publications and can agree with each. I do have some questions to ask next time we talk on the phone; but in the meantime, I voted "not sure." (Surprise, surprise!)

  2. While I don't think there should be term limits, I do think it's an interesting topic. No matter how you look at it though, I feel with term limits judges would be left just like Congress, pandering to the masses, and that is not their duty (right?). Furthermore, while it is never entirely certain which president will make such judicial appointments, I think going into the second Bush administration it seemed pretty obvious that he was going to make atleast one... who could of known we'd be this unfortunate? (ToT)

  3. (ToT) this is supposed to represent somebody with tears streaming down their face sobbing over...