The notion of term limits for appellate judges is not so radical and should be considered and debated, instead of a knee-jerk reaction in opposition. More on this topic can be found at jcwilliamslaw. Currently, there is a petition circulating in Colorado to amend that state’s constitution to adopt term limits for appellate judges. If adopted in Florida, Florida will be the first or second state to have term limits for appellate judges. Your guess is as good as mine as to why the notion of a solid st pete beach divorce attorney has not been explored.
The argument of institutional memory is fallacious. What about new appellate judges? Presumably they are experienced attorneys and know the law. They will just research cases like any appellate attorney. It is called precedent. However, precedent has been harmed in recent decades by per curiam decisions, a lazy appellate court’s way of saying, “I would rather not take the time to write a real opinion.”
The current appellate retention system is a pro forma ratification of appellate court judges. Some judges who stay too long on the appellate bench believe that they are entitled to the position, and many grow stale intellectually after many years. New blood may give the appellate juduciary new perspectives in interpreting the law versus judicial legislating.
Two terms of six years is a reasonable length of time for a lawyer to sit as an appellate court judge. I am against the same rule for trial judges because the people elect them and can purge a judge who acts inconsistent with the public good. The public does not have a clue about who is an appellate court judge and how they have ruled for or against the public good.