Another Stab At the Constitution- Greene's Point Of View

"In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision."- Jamal Greene http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-we-need-term-limits-for-federal-judges

          Greene makes two very valid arguments in his article.  First we have the issue of old age, everyone will go through it- judges are not exempt.  After many years, and depending on the care and state of the body; we begin to deteriorate, physically and mentally.  One's judgement begins to decline and the older we get the more stubborn we are.  Think about it,  how difficult does it become to see or make your grandparents understand or agree with your point of view.  The second point to Greene's argument is that it becomes too political the way judges are elected.  First they are appointed by the president and then approved by the Senate.  As Professor Marduco has stated in his blog, with so many oppositions going on today between the democrats and republicans it has become increasingly complicated to elect Justices. I personally could not agree more with his argument.  As Green says, "In democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long" , this is very true- the presidents cap of ruling terms is a great example of this, why are justices any different? Greene also mentions about an 18 year term, which I still think it is a bit long but nonetheless it is a step in the right direction.