When the president appoints judges to serve in federal courts, they can remain on the bench for how long they wish. According to the "good behavior" principle, the only exception exists if a Congressional impeachment takes place (which is very rare). The lifetime appointment has its pros and cons:
<u>PROS</u>
Judges' decisions are free from political pressure since they're not worried about whether they'll be reelected.
The longer he/she spends on the bench allows them to develop a greater knowledge regarding the law and specific cases before them.
<u>CONS</u>
Judges appointed for life might get comfortable and start creating their own laws from the bench.
These judges under lifetime appointment are often subjected to bribes (political favors) and corruption.
One advantage would be that the judges can implement justice based on their own perspective of the law without the influence of public audience, but this has a disadvantage, the candidate is chosen by the president, therefore, the political predisposition of the judge is strongly influenced by the president´s party.
Another advantage would be that the judges cannot retire in a specific presidential term in hopes of political gain. In other words, the judges would not retire early so they can be replaced by someone with similar political beliefs. On the other hand, this could present a disadvantage, if, by certain reason several positions become available during one presidential term, this would implicate that the Congress might be tilted to the side of the current political party.
both the English and the Spanish explorers wanted to be the first to find something new so they were constantly in a position where one had to be better then the other. :)
The main idea in Madison's federalist paper #51 is that checks and balances can and should be put in place in a federal government in order to keep any single branch from becoming too powerful.
